Why in News?  The Supreme Court in the late 70s and 80s developed a strong definitive jurisprudence around the restricted use of handcuffs which culminated into directives that require agencies of law enforcement to ask the court’s permission before handcuffing a person.

What the court has declared ?

• We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner – convicted or under-trial-while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.
• The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the hand- cuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.
• Where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate.
• Save in rare cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, ‘his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner.
• In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate and remand – judicial or non-judicial – is given by the Magistrate the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.
• When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained form a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested.
• Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guide-lines given by us in para above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate.

Rights against Handcuffing:

Article 14 – Right to Equality: Handcuffing without following legal procedures violates equal treatment under the law. (Citizens for Justice and Peace vs. State of Gujarat & Ors)

Article 19 – Right to Freedom: This includes a minimum right to movement, which handcuffing excessively restricts. (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration)

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: This right prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which includes unnecessary handcuffing. (Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration)

Case Law :

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration -AIR 1978 SC 1675, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 forbids deprivation of personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and curtailment of personal; liberty to such an extent as to be a negation of it would constitute deprivation.

In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration -AIR 1980 SC 1535, the court examined the rationale behind fetters and held that prima facie handcuffing is inhuman and hence unreasonable as well as arbitrary in absence of fair procedure and objective monitoring.

What is “Mandela Rules”  or  the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ?

The “Mandela Rules” refer to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. They are named in honor of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison in South Africa. These rules set out the minimum standards for the humane treatment of prisoners.

Rule 47(1) specifically addresses the issue of disciplinary sanctions and other restrictive measures. It states:

“Solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority. It shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.”

In summary, Rule 47(1) mandates that solitary confinement should be:

1. Used only in exceptional cases.
2. A last resort.
3. For as short a time as possible.
4. Subject to independent review.
5. Authorized by a competent authority.
6. Not imposed as part of a prisoner’s sentence.