Suo Motu Contempt Petition No 10 Of ... vs Date Of Judgment:08/01/1996 on 8 January, 1996
construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on
river Narmada on the ground that the construction of the Dam
would be prejudicial to the interests of the tribals
residing in the catchment area of the Dam since their lands
would be submerged in water and they would be displaced. The
members of the Sangath have been agitating against the
construction of the Dam. In connection with the said
agitation, the members of the Sangath were arrested by the
police authorities on various dates in connection with
criminal cases registered against them and after their
arrest, the arrested persons were handcuffed while being
taken from jail to the court and from court to jail or from
jail/court to civil hospital and back to jail/court. On some
occasions they were paraded while handcuffed through the
streets of Alirajpur. In the Writ Petition, mention is made
of the following incidents of handcuffing of under trial
prisoners :
7.2.93 -Rahul Ram and Ashwini Chhatre were handcuffed
and paraded on the streets of Alirajpur and
were then taken taken in a truck to Sondwa.
8.2.93 -All the above, as well as Ruhul Ram and Ashwini
Chhatre were handcuffed and taken into the
hospital. Handcuffs were removed during the
examination. They were handcuffed again and
taken to court and then to the police station,
then back to court.
Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen
Dixit, 1973 (2) SCR 495, this Court was satisfied that a
prima facie case is made out for taking action for contempt
of Court against persons responsible for the aforementioned
acts of handcuffing of under trial prisoners. A direction
was, therefore, given by order dated June 4, 1993 to issue
notice to the contemners to show cause why they should not
be punished for having committed contempt of this Court.
In response to the said notice, affidavits have been
filed by the aforementioned contemners. Before we deal with
the explanation offered by the contemners, it would be
necessary to refer to the provisions of Regulation 465 of
the M.P. Police Regulations which prescribes as follows :
"465. Hand-cuffs when Used - Hand-cuffs
shall be used only if they are
In the present case, it is not disputed that provisions of
sub-clause (3) Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations
were not complied with inasmuch as no orders were obtained
from the concerned Magistrate/Jail Officer by the concerned
police personnel with regard to handcuffing of the prisoners
while taking them to and from court or Jail. Handcuffing of
the under trial prisoners has been sought to be justified on
the ground that (i) the accused persons attempted to resist
the arrest and made attempts to run away; and (ii) a large
number of supporters of the Sangath had reached Alirajpur on
knowing about the arrest of accused persons and there was
strong possibility that they would have attempted to free
the accused persons from the police custody. It has also
been stated that two cases involving offences under Section
307 IPC had been registered