Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has directed Assam Police to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to an advocate for handcuffing him without just cause, observing that the act of the police violated the advocate’s human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, a law graduate who had enrolled his name in the State Bar Council in 2008, had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging infraction to Article 21 of the Constitution for violating his basic fundamental rights by the respondent authorities for handcuffing the petitioner without just cause.
“The petitioner is an advocate and handcuffing the petitioner and parading him by taking him to the Court and thereafter back to the jail with iron fetters that too without just cause being shown, not only violates the human rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but also demeans his dignity and prestige to carry out his profession of advocacy,” a single bench of the High Court observed.
According to the case, an FIR was lodged by a home guard of Assam Police alleging that the petitioner had manhandled him on October 05, 2016, as the informant did not allow the petitioner to park his car near his house.
Based on the FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 325, 341 and 353 of IPC. A counter FIR under Sections 294, 323, 392 and 511 was also filed by the petitioner against the home guard, alleging he had verbally and physically abused the petitioner and tried to snatch the bag of the petitioner which contained Rs 10,000.
After the FIR was lodged, police personnel of the Panbazar Police Station called the petitioner to the police station on October 5, 2016, and on his visit to the police station, the petitioner was detained. He was subsequently informed that he had been arrested. The following day, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) and thereafter, sent to judicial custody.
It is the further case of the petitioner that in violation of all mandates of law and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, he was handcuffed at the police station and taken to MMC Hospital in Panbazar for a medical checkup in handcuffed condition. Thereafter, on October 6, 2016, when the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), he was again handcuffed and, on his way, back to the police vehicle was under continuous handcuffed condition throughout his journey from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M) at Kachari to Central Jail, Guwahati at Lokhra, which is about 20 kilometres away.
Notably, the petitioner was acquitted in the case against him by a judgement dated June 4, 2020, and the investigating officer (IO) during the course of the trial had admitted he had handcuffed the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the act of handcuffing, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on September 18, 2020, vindicating his grievances for violation of his basic human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The complaint was registered as AHRC case number 3021/2020-21(9). However, vide order dated March 30, 2021, the complaint filed by the petitioner was closed by AHRC on the ground that the concerned IO had expired.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner thereafter approached the High Court by filing a writ petition for quashing the order dated March 30, 2021, and for a direction upon the respondents and each one of them to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for violating his basic fundamental rights by handcuffing him without just cause.
The Court noted that in his cross-examination, the investigating officer had categorically admitted that he had handcuffed the petitioner. It was further noted by the Court that, except Section 353, all charges against the petitioner were in respect of bailable offences.
The Court had to determine whether the petitioner who was arrested could have been handcuffed and if so, under what circumstances, and, if there was any violation by the arresting officer, would the petitioner be entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount?
After referring to Sections 46 and 49 of CrPC; Section 220 of IPC and Rule 214 of Assam Police Manual and jurisprudence laid down in pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978); Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) and Citizens for Democracy Through Its President v. State of Assam and Others (1995), the Court noted that IO acted contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the three cases and violated the petitioner’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that as it was the burden upon the custodian of the detenu to explain the reasons why the petitioner was handcuffed and apparent failure on the part of the respondents to show the reasons, that too when the petitioner himself surrendered, clearly showed that the respondent authorities, and more particularly the IO, had acted contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court.
While relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Others (1993), the Court observed that the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner for handcuffing him without just cause, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
“In normal circumstances, a direction is to be issued to the state to make payment of compensation and the compensation so paid be recovered from the arresting officer who had put the handcuffs. But in the instant case, as the arresting officer has already expired, this Court is of the opinion that such directions would not be proper,” the Court said.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
“Under such circumstances, this Court considering the loss so suffered by the petitioner, and also taking into account that some amount of compensation is required to be imposed upon the respondent authorities as a deterrent, directs the respondent authorities to pay a compensation of Rs 5,00,000 to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgement is served upon the Director General of Police, Assam,” it said.
Also Read: From Ukhrul to Seoul: How this Tangkhul youth landed a job at Google