Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Banwarilal Sharma, a journalist and managing editor of a daily newspaper, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking compensation of Rs.5 crores and departmental action against police officers for alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The incident occurred on 2nd July 2009, when after being remanded to police custody in connection with an FIR (No.31 of 2009) registered at Diu Police Station for offences under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was paraded through a crowded market area in handcuffed condition by three police constables while being taken from the bus stand at Daman to the police station. The petitioner claimed that this act was a gross violation of his rights and liberty, and that the FIR was falsely registered at the behest of the second respondent (the then Administrator of the Union Territory) due to the petitioner's investigative journalism exposing the administrator's misdeeds. The respondents, including the Union Territory of Diu, Daman and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, and the police officers, denied the allegations, asserting that the handcuffing was necessary to prevent escape as the petitioner was a high-profile accused with a history of evading arrest. The court analyzed the legal principles regarding handcuffing of undertrial prisoners, noting that while handcuffing should not be routine, it is permissible in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of escape or violence. The court observed that the petitioner did not challenge the remand order or the necessity of handcuffing at the relevant time, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of malice or violation of fundamental rights. The court held that the petitioner's claim for compensation was not maintainable as no constitutional violation was proved, and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Handcuffing of Undertrial Prisoners - Articles 14, 21, Constitution of India - The court examined whether handcuffing a journalist during transit from bus stand to police station violated his rights. Held that handcuffing is not per se illegal; it is permissible when there is a reasonable apprehension of escape or violence. The petitioner failed to prove that the handcuffing was malicious or without justification. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Police Custody - Handcuffing Guidelines - Sections 384, 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court considered the guidelines on handcuffing as laid down by the Supreme Court. Held that the police must record reasons for handcuffing, but in this case, the petitioner did not challenge the remand order or the necessity of handcuffing. The claim for compensation was dismissed as no fundamental right violation was established. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the handcuffing and parading of the petitioner, a journalist, while in police custody violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, entitling him to compensation of Rs.5 crores and departmental action against the police officers.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition, holding that no violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 was established, and therefore the claim for compensation and departmental action was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Handcuffing of undertrial prisoners is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable apprehension of escape or violence
- not as a routine. The burden of proving malice or violation of fundamental rights lies on the petitioner. Compensation under Article 226 is not automatic and requires proof of constitutional violation.
