NANDA KISHORE MISRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Personal liberty was so much cherished by the founding fathers that they made it a fundamental right which has almost been thrown to the winds in the present case, inasmuch as one Amarjit, aged about 18 years, had been handcuffed and put in chains while he was hospitalised and was in the Surgery Ward of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. The apex Court, as the protector of fundamental rights, ever since 1978, in which year Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administrative, AIR 1978 SC 1675: (1978 Cri LJ 1741) saw the light of the day, has shown so much of averness to handcuffing that Justice Krishna Iyer had to unfold the entire jurisprudence on the subject by taking pains in writing a lengthy judgment by pin-pointing the circumstances under which handcuffing can be said to be not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. was on the subject of bar-fetters put on a person while in prison. What was said in that regard has been applied to handcuffing of a person outside the prison as well.

(2.) Sri Mohapatra has drawn our attention to the various paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment in which the learned Judge has shown his deep concern for the protection of personal liberty and concluded his views in paragraph 187 by stating that handcuffing should be allowed to be put only when that is absolutely necessary.

(3.) Sunil Batra's case was followed in Prem Shankar's case, AIR 1980 SC 1535 : (1980 Cri LJ 930) in which also Krishna Iyer, J. while dealing with handcuffing stated in Paragraph 22 that it is prima facie "inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict 'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21."