SOUMEN BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) More than three decades ago the Apex Court in the case Prem Shankar Shukla v. Deli Administration, 1980 AIR(SC) 1535 declared that handcuffing of an under trial prisoner or keeping him in prison fetters/chains is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and thereby unconstitutional. In spite of such unequivocal pronouncement, an ailing under trial/student leader was chained to his hospital bed at North Bengal Medical College in a distressing display of apathy to our constitutional ethos and commitment to human rights jurisprudence. The factual matrix as portrayed in the writ petition is that a student leader, namely Santosh Sahani, was booked by the police on 10th April, 2013 for allegedly being a member of an unlawful assembly which had a skirmish with the law enforcement agencies in the course of a public demonstration. Admittedly, Santosh Sahani does not have any criminal antecedent. After being arrested, Santosh Sahani was remanded to judicial custody and was kept at Siliguri Special Correctional Home. In the night of 14-4-2013, Santosh complained of uneasiness and was shifted to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Siliguri on 15-4-2013. It has been alleged that on 16th April, 2013 Santosh Sahani was kept chained to the hospital bed for about 40 hours. It has also been alleged that during the said period he was not provided basic necessities like food, water and was not even allowed to go to the toilet. It has been complained that such action is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) In this backdrop, the petitioner, a public spirited advocate, has prayed for a direction upon respondent authorities to act strictly in accordance with law, particularly, in the matter of use of chains or handcuffs on arrested persons and to issue directions upon respondent authorities to follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the matter of handcuffing and/or chaining. A direction for judicial enquiry into the alleged incident has also been prayed. It has been further prayed that adequate compensation be paid to Santosh Sahani for being chained in the hospital during judicial custody.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State it appears that respondent authorities, in fact, admitted that Santosh Sahani was chained in the hospital. The authorities have, however, disputed the period for which the under trial prisoner was chained, which according to them was for a "very brief time" and they have sought to justify for such heinous act on the excuse of purported security considerations. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is set out hereinbelow: