Francis Coralie vs.

Union Territory of Delhi: Case-Comment

By Indian Legal Solution Case Comments 0 Comments
Author: Ayush Jain, Unitedworld School of Law, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi: Case-Comment
Bench: Hon’bleJustice P.N. Bhagwati and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT: Francis Coralie Mullin
RESPONDENT: Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors.
Date of Judgment: 13.01.1981
Citation: 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Facts:
The petitioner, who is a British national, was arrested and detained in the
Central Jail, Tihar under an Order dated 23rd November 1979 issued
under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act[1]. The Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 The Petitioner
filed a petition in the Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her
detention, but by a judgment delivered by the Court on 27th February 1980, her
petition was rejected with the result that she continued to remain under
detention in the Tihar Central Jail. Hence it was necessary for her to consult her
lawyer, but even her lawyer found it difficult to obtain an interview with her
because in order to arrange an interview, he was required to obtain a prior
appointment from the District Magistrate, Delhi and the interview could take
place only in the presence of a Customs Officer nominated by the Collector of
Customs. This procedure for obtaining an interview caused considerable
hardship and inconvenience and there were occasions when, even after
obtaining prior appointment from the District Magistrate, her lawyer could not
have an interview with her because no Customs Officer nominated by the
Collector of Customs remained present at the appointed time. The petitioner
was thus effectively denied the facility of an interview with her lawyer and even
her young daughter, 5 years old, could not meet her except once in a month as
per Section 3(b)(ii). She was detained on attempting to smuggle hashish out of
the country and hence for her defence, interview with her lawyer was of
extreme importance.
ISSUES RAISED:
 Whether the sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause 3 (b) of COFEPOSA are
in violation of Article 14[2] and 21[3] of the Indian Constitution?
 Whether the right given in Article 22[4] of the Indian Constitution is
also violated as the Petitioner was not allowed to meet his legal
representative?
ARGUMENTS:
From Petitioner: The petitioner argued that allowing only once in a month for
meeting the family members is discriminatory and unreasonable as this was not
the procedure for under-trial prisoners who were permitted the access of an
interview twice per week as per Rule 559A and convicted prisoners who were
granted the same facility once a week under Rule 550 of the Rules in the
Manual for the jails in Punjab.
The petitioner also argued that Article 22 of the Constitution of India entitles
the person to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice, but here the
prior appointment for an interview and of the presence of a Customs or Excise
Officer at the interview was not reasonable and was arbitrary in nature.

Hence, this violates the right given under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.

From Respondent: The defendants argued that the clauses were not violative
of Articles 14 and 21 as the restrictions imposed were reasonable, fair, and just.
The defendant accepted that instead of a monthly interview, the petitioner could
be granted the facility of an interview twice a week with her daughter and sister
as in the case of under- trial prisoners and they would relax the condition of
presence of a customs or excise officer at the interview with the lawyer.

JUDGEMENT:
The Court held that the Sub-clause (i) of Clause 3 (b) of COFEPOSA Act which
is regulating the right of the petitioner to have an interview with a legal adviser
of his choice is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
must be held to be unconstitutional and void. The court finds it reasonable that
if the Petitioner were to be entitled to have an interview with his legal adviser at
any reasonable hour during the day after taking an appointment from the
Superintendent of the Jail, which appointment should be given by the
Superintendent without any delay.

The Hon’ble Court also said that the interview need not necessarily take place
in the presence of a nominated officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement
but if the presence of such officer can be conveniently secured at the time of the
interview without involving any postponement of the interview, then such
officer and if his presence cannot be so secured, then any other Jail official may,
if thought necessary, watch the interview but not so as to be within hearing
distance of the detenu and the legal adviser.

Hence, the court allowed the writ petition and granted relief to the petitioner.

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.

Introduction
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. was a landmark decision ruled on March 9, 1979,
that gave broader meaning to Article 21 and stated that everyone has the right to
a prompt trial. It is the most well-known case involving the human rights of
Indian inmates.

The Supreme Court stated that the State must provide free legal assistance and a
quick trial to administer justice.

Background
In 1979, the publication Indian Express published an article about the
incarceration of under-trial convicts in the Bihar jail. Few of these under-trial
inmates had been incarcerated for very long periods, in some cases for far
longer than the courts had ordered.

Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani was one of the article’s readers, and she
filed a lawsuit before the Supreme Court of India as a Public Interest Litigation.
Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani is known as the “Mother of Public Interest
Litigation in India” since this was the first documented case of PIL in India.

Facts
A writ of habeas corpus was brought before the Court under Story 32,
requesting the release of 17 under-trial convicts whose identities were revealed
in a newspaper article in Bihar. The state of Bihar was ordered to provide a
revised chart displaying the year-by-year breakdown of the under-trial inmates,
after separating them into two main categories: minor offenses and serious
offenses.

Issues

 Should the right to a quick trial be included in Article 21?

 Is it possible for the law to compel the provision of free legal assistance?
Arguments
Many under-trial inmates incarcerated in the Patna Central Jail, the Muzaffarpur
Central Jail, and the Ranchi Central Jail before their release have been routinely
presented before the Magistrates and remanded to judicial custody as needed,
according to the counter-affidavit submitted to the Court.

These allegations, however, were ruled unacceptable by the Court because they
failed to comply with the requirement to show the dates on which these under-
trial detainees were detained.

Furthermore, to excuse the pending cases, it has been claimed that in nearly
10% of the instances, the investigation is stalled owing to a delay in receiving
expert opinions.

Judgment
The Court ordered that these under-trial detainees, whose names and addresses
were recorded in Mrs. Hingorani’s list, be released because their continued
detention was considered illegal and a violation of their fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution because they had been in prison for a period
exceeding the maximum term for which they should have been indicted.

The Court also agreed that on subsequent remand dates, when undertrial
detainees accused of bailable offenses are brought before the Magistrates, the
State Government should appoint a lawyer at its own expense to file a bail
application, thereby limiting remand and allowing for a quick trial to begin.

The State Government and the High Court were obliged to submit information
on the locations of the magistrate and session courts in Bihar, as well as the total
number of cases outstanding in each court as of December 31, 1978.
They were also required to explain why it was not practicable to resolve matters
that had been outstanding for more than six months.

Guidelines related to prisoner’s right in India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petitioner: D.K. Basu
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Date of Judgement: 18th December, 1996
Bench (Corum): Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh; A.S. Anand, JJ.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Discussed:

Section 41, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 167, 174 and 176 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.

Article 20 (3), 21, 22, 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India.

Section 147, 149, 201, 218, 220, 302, 304, 330, 331, 34 and 342 of Indian Penal
Code (IPC), 1860.

Facts: DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-
political organization on 26/08/1986 addressed a letter to the Supreme Court of
India calling his attention to certain news published in the Telegraph Newspaper
about deaths in police custody and custody. He requested that the letter be treated
as a Writ Petition within the “Public Interest Litigation”. Considering the
importance of the issues raised in the letter, it was treated as a written Petition and
the Defendants were notified. While the writ petition was being considered, Mr.
Ashok Kumar Johri addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
calling his attention to the death of a Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh in
police custody. The same letter was also treated as a Request for Writing and was
included along with D.K. Basu’s Request for Writing. On 14/08/1987 the Court
gave the order for issuing notices to all state governments, including a notice to the
Law Commission requesting appropriate suggestions within a two-month period.
In response to the notification, several states submitted affidavits, including West
Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya,
Maharashtra, and Manipur. Additionally, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Principal Counsel was
appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. All of the attorneys who appeared to
provide useful assistance to the Court.

Issues:

1. Growth in incidents of Custodial Torture and Deaths by Police.

2.The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.

3.Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?

Arguments Advanced:

Contentions of Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that bodily pain and mental agony suffered by a person
within the four walls of a police station or confinement should be avoided.
Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the scope of trauma
experiences is beyond the scope of the law.

The petitioner further argued that there is a need for a civilized nation and that
some important steps must be taken to eradicate it.

Contentions of Respondent:

The Counsel representing different states along with Dr. AM Singhvi presented the
case and stated that “everything was fine” within their respective States, presented
their respective beliefs and provided useful assistance to this Court to examine
various facets of the problem and made sure that suggestions for the formulation of
guidelines by this court, to reduce, if not prevent, violence in custody to include
death due to torture.
In order to defend this important fall of the administrative wing, the State of West
Bengal made an attempt to convey that there are no deaths in the confinements and
even if there were any, then an investigation should be carried out on whoever did
it.

Judgment:

Ratio Decidendi:

 When the right is guaranteed by the State, it is against the State that the
remedy must be sought if the constitutional obligation imposed has not been
fulfilled.
 Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and has been held
to include the right to live with human dignity. It thus also includes a
guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries.
 Protection against arrest and detention is guaranteed by Article 22. It
provides that no individuals arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed of the grounds of arrest and that arrested individual shall not
be denied the right to consult and defend themselves by a legal practitioner
of their choice.
 Article 20 (3) provides that a person accused of an offence shall not be
compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.

Obiter Dicta:

 The Court was of the opinion that custodial violence, including torture and
death in lock-up, strikes at the rule of law. Custodial violence, including
 torture and death in prisons, was considered by the court to be one of the
worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.
 The Court observed that despite the constitutional and statutory provisions
aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, the growing
incidence of torture and deaths in police custody has been a disturbing
factor.
 Reference was made to the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
(1993)[2] in which the Supreme Court had held that prisoners and detainees
are not deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and only the
restriction permitted by law could be imposed on the enjoyment of the
Fundamental Rights of prisoners and detained.

Guidelines issued:

The Court issued a list of 11 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and

Statutory Safeguards to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention.
The guidelines are as follows: –

1. Police personnel who make the arrest and handle the interrogation of the
arrested person must wear precise, visible and clear identifications and
identification labels with their designations. Details of all personnel handling the
interrogations of the arrested person must be recorded in a register.

2. That the police officer making the arrest of the detainee will prepare a
memorandum of arrest at the time of the arrest and said memo will be witnessed by
at least one witness who may be a member of the family of the arrested person or a
respectable person from the locality from where the arrest is made. It must also be
signed by the detainee and must contain the time and date of the arrest.

3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is detained at a police station or
interrogation centre or other confinement, shall have the right to have a friend or
relative or other person known to him or who has an interest in his well-being will
be informed, as soon as possible, that he/they has/ have been arrested and is /are
being detained in a particular place unless the witness crediting the arrest
memorandum is himself a friend or relative of those arrested.

4. Police must notify a detainee’s time, place of detention, and place of custody
where he is being kept to the detainee’s next friend or relative living outside the
district or city through the District’s Legal Aid Organization and the station. Police
of the affected area should be telegraphically informed within the period of 8 to 12
hours after the arrest.

5. The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed
of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

6. An entry must be made in the Case Diary at the place of detention regarding the
arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the
person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the
police official in whose custody the arrestee is.

7. Upon request, the Arrestee must also be examined at the time of his arrest and
major and minor injuries, if present on his body, must be recorded at that time. The
“Inspection Memo” must be signed by both the detainee and the arresting police
officer and a copy must be provided to the detainee.

8. The detainee must undergo a medical examination by a trained physician every

48 hours while in custody by a physician on the panel of approved physicians
appointed by the Director of Health Services of the State or Union Territory
concerned.

9. Copies of all documents, including the arrest memo, must be sent to the
Magistrate for registration.
10.The Arrestee may be allowed to meet with his attorney during the interrogation,
although not throughout the interrogation.

11.A Police Control Room must be provided at all central district and state offices,
where the arresting officer must communicate information about the arrest and the
place of custody of the arrested, within 12 hours after the arrest and in the Police
Control Room Board, must be displayed on a visible notice board.

The protection of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution becomes available to a

person as soon as he is named as an accused either in a first information
report made under Section 154 CrPC or in a complaint instituted against
him in Court (see Narayanlal Bansilal vs. Maneck Phiroz Mistry, AIR 1961
SC 29). An accused person shall have the following rights, namely

(i) Right to be informed of the grounds immediately after the

arrest.
(ii) Right for medical examination
(iii) Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his
arrest
(iv) Right to consult a lawyer of his choice
(v) Right to be tried
(vi) Duty of the investigating authority to complete investigation
and submit report under Section 173 CrPC
(vii) Right to get copies of the documents and statements of
witnesses relied on by the prosecution
(viii) Right to have notice of the charges
(ix) Right to insist that evidence be recorded in his presence except
in special circumstances
 (x) Right for his request for exemption of personal attendance to be
considered on its own merits
(xi) Right to test the evidence by cross examination
(xii) Right to produce defence witnesses
(xiii) Right to not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
(xiv) Right to be given an opportunity to explain circumstances
appearing in evidence against him
(xv) Right to be heard about his sentence upon conviction protection
against double jeopardy
(xvi) Right to get copy of the judgment when sentenced to
imprisonment
(xvii) Right to appeal in case of conviction
(xviii)Right not to be imprisoned upon conviction in certain
circumstances (Probation of Offenders Act)
(xix) Right to education

Right to Privacy of prisoners and their spouses

In Rahmath Nisha v. Additional Director General of Prisoner and Others, the

accused was given 10 days leave to visit his wife. But, due to serious illness, his
wife was transferred to the hospital in ICU by the time he reached home.
However, the police escort that accompanied the accused refused to let him visit
the hospital citing that permission has been granted to visit home only. The
Madras Court held that the prisoner should be allowed to visit his wife in
hospital and that the meeting between him and his wife should not be
monitored.
The court stated that when a prisoner is united with his wife, he might like to
hold her the hands of his partner. It’s natural that his emotions would find
physical expression. Therefore, the right to privacy and dignity of the prisoners
should be scrupulously safeguarded. It is also important that the conversation
between the prisoner and his partner or spouse should go unmonitored.

Right to Life and personal liberty

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly applied the rule of Article 21 in
numerous cases and asserted its significance in several other. It has expanded
the connotation of the word “life” given by Field J. in the much-known case
of Kharak Singh v. State of UP. In the said case, the court ruled that the term
“life” connotes more than mere existence like that of an animal. The inhibition
against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is
enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by the
amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye or the destruction of
any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the
other world. It can be said that right to live is not restricted to a mere animal
existence. It connotes something more than just the physical survival of a being.

Parmannd Katara v. Union of India

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a public-spirited person in

response to a news report of a scooterist who was knocked down by a car and
died due to lack of medical treatment. Following the accident, the scooterist was
taken to the nearest hospital, but was turned away and sent to another hospital
20kms away which was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. The scooterist
died while he was being transported to the other hospital. The petitioner sought
the issuance of a specific direction to the Union of India by the Supreme Court
which read as: “every citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be
given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law
should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event
of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for
negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible.” Along with the
Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical
Association were impleaded as respondents.

The Gujarat High Court in Rasikbhai Ramsing Rana v. State of Gujarat held
that the right to medical treatment is one of the basic human rights that should
be made available to every person. The court further guided the concerned jail
authorities to take proper mental and physical health care of the prisoners which
were suffering from any type of disease.

Free legal aid

Case Commentary on M.H. Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra

Sep 20, 2022 Constitution

Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai

Hon'ble Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy

Date of Judgment: 17 August 1978

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner was a PhD and MSc, 30 years old was charged with forging the
degree certificates of the Karnataka University and was found guilty of the
serious offences under Section 417, 467, 468,471 and 511 of Indian Penal Code.
Since the petitioner came from a middle-class family, The trial court sentenced
him to simple imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner and the State both filed
appeals to the High Court, the petitioner argued against the one-day
imprisonment and the State opposed the simple imprisonment for such serious
offences. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and allowed the
State's prayer for enhancement and imposed imprisonment of three years.

The petitioner through SLP appealed to the Supreme Court of India in 1974,
after four years of imprisonment. The reason for the delay is that the High Court
did not deliver a copy of the ruling to the petitioner until 1978. The right of the
petitioner to seek justice was violated.

ISSUES

1. Is the right to free legal aid provided and guaranteed to prisoners in India
under Article 21 of the Constitution?

LAWS APPLIED IN THE CASE

Sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 417: This section prescribes punishment for cheating; it says whoever
cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year or with a fine or both.

Section 467: This section talks about forgery of valuable security, will etc. It
talks about that if anyone forges a document which purports to be a valuable
security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give
authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive
the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money,
movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 468: This section prescribes punishment for forgery perpetrated with
the intent to cheating. Anyone who commits forgery with the intent that the
[document or electronic record fabricated] would be used to cheat is punishable
by with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471: Any [document or electronic record] that is falsely or dishonestly

used as genuine by someone who knows or has reason to think it is a forged
[document or electronic record] will be penalised in the same way as if it were
his own work.

Section 511: This section says that the punishment for attempting to commit
offences is punishable with the imprisonment for life or other imprisonments. It
says that whosoever attempts to commit an offence will be punishable under
this section either with the imprisonment or life imprisonment. If any attempt
did for the commission of an offence, then there will be no provision made by
this Code for the punishment of such attempt, he will be punished for the
imprisonment for the provided term which may extend to the one-half for the
life or with a fine provided for the offence or by both.

Sections of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Section 304: This section provides legal aid to the accused at state expense in
some cases.
 1. Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not
represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the
accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall
assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
2. The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government
make rule providing for;
a. the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under Sub-Section (1);
b. the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
c. the fee payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally,
for carrying out the purposes of Sub-Section (1).
3. The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date
as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of Sub-Sections (1)
and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in
the State as they apply in relation to trials before the Courts of Session.

Section 363: This section tells that the copy of the judgment should be given to
the accused and other persons.

1. When the accused is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the judgment

shall, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment, be given to
him free of cost.
2. On the application of the accused, a certified copy of the judgment, or
when he so desires, a translation is his own language if practicable or in
the language of the Court, shall be given to him without delay, and such
copy shall, in every case where the judgment is appealable by the accused
be given free of cost;

Provided that where a sentence of death is passed or confirmed by the

High Court, a certified copy of the judgment shall be immediately given
to the accused free of cost whether or not he applies for the same.
 3. (3) The provisions of Sub-Section (2) shall apply in relation to an order
under Section 117 as they apply in relation to a judgment which is
appealable by the accused.
4. When the accused is sentenced to death by any Court and an appeal lies
from such judgment as of right, the Court shall inform him of the period
within which, if he wishes to appeal his appeal should be preferred.
5. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2) any person affected by a
judgment or order passed by a criminal Court shall, on an application
made in this behalf and on payment of the prescribed charges, be given a
copy of such judgment or order of any deposition or other part of the
record;

Provided that the Court may, if it thinks fit for some special reason, give
it to him free of cost.

6. The High Court may, by rules provide for the grant of copies of any
judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any person who is not affected
by a judgment or order on payment, by such person, of such fees, and
subject to such conditions, as the High Court may, by such rules provide.

Article 19, Article 21, Article 22, Article 136, Article 142 and Article 39-A of
the Constitution of India

Article 39-A: The article talks about equal justice and free legal aid. It states
that the State must ensure that the functioning of the legal system promotes
justice on the basis of equal opportunity, provide free legal aid through
appropriate legislation and schemes, or take other measures to ensure that no
citizen is denied the opportunity to secure justice due to a financial or other
disability.

JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP saying that matters related to the public
importance or affecting the morality of the court are taken under Article 136 of
the Constitution. It is the State's responsibility to provide free legal aid to the
prisoner if they are unable or disabled from acquiring the same. Articles 142,
194 read with Article 21 & 39-A give power to the court for the above-
mentioned case. Justice Krishna Iyer in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra,
advised that the Court not to mistake the correctional approach with prison
confinement and nominal punishment. When several innocent people are at risk
of becoming victims, soft-sentence justice is egregious injustice. It was also
decided that states should provide free legal assistance to needy,
underprivileged people who are unable to afford it. With Articles 14 and 19, this
case has broadened the scope of Article 21, as well as addressed the issue of
procedural and legal delays.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In numerous circumstances, the judgement of M.H. Hoskot v. the State of

Maharashtra is implemented and cited as a precedent. For the first time in
India, it established the right of prisoners to free legal assistance under Article
21 of the Constitution's liberty provision. The law that governs prisoners' rights
is constantly being developed. The judicial system has attempted to protect the
convict's fundamental rights while simultaneously granting them some
recognition. A person's status does not change to that of a non-person if they are
found guilty of a crime. As a result, it has been ascertained that an accused who
has been sentenced to imprisonment has a right to free legal assistance. Courts
must also always provide an accused with a free copy of the judgement when
passing sentence, and jail staff must assist an accused in seeking his right to
appeal.

After this judgment the prisoner's rights were recognized in several cases,
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, in this case Article 19 cumulatively read
with Article 21 established that personal liberty could not be restricted without
proper judicial processes.

Khatri and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors. 4 In this case the court stated that the
State had the connotational mandate to provide free legal aid to an accused who
cannot afford legal services due to poor economic conditions also ensuring the
free and fair trial.

Bar against handcuffing

The case of Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration was one of the
landmark cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matters
and provisionality of Law of Crimes regarding to whether hand-cuffing was
constitutionally valid or not. In the following case the petitioner was a prisoner
under-trial and was kept at the Tihar Jail. While being taken to court every day
for various pending matters and judgments he would be handcuffed by the
officer in charge or on duty on that particular day. Though the Trial court had
given its hearing that handcuffs should not be used and made applicable while
taking the petitioner to the court and back for the proceedings, but still the
escorting officers continued the same. In furtherance to the proceedings and
continuance of disobeyance of the orders of the Trial court, the petitioner sent a
telegram to one of the judges of the Supreme Court complaining and
mentioning about this torture and humiliation. Also the petitioner filed a habeas
corpus petition in the Supreme Court which was duly entertained based on the
question whether hand-cuffing is constitutionality valid or not?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court contending on the present case reviewed and
extended that “handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and at first
blush arbitrary without fair procedure and objective monitoring.” The court
further stated that it understands the purpose of handcuffs to not allow prisoners
to run away, but reinstated that it is not compulsorily mandated and required
necessary at all the times. The opined court also stated that handcuffing a
prisoner is also against the law and provisions of the Constitution of India
particularly Article 14, 19 and 21[2] and also violates the basic and
quintessential dignity of humans guaranteed and enshrined by the laws of the
country.
Adding to the contention the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “to bind a man
hand-and-foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the
streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity,
vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.”