HC raps Punjab Police for not updating themselves on handcuffing rules

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 13

More than four decades after the Supreme Court came out with its “milestone judgment” on handcuffing undertrials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped the Punjab Police and the prosecution for not updating themselves and relying upon rules held unconstitutional way back in April 1980.

Describing it as a “disturbing fact”, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan has ordered the Directors (Prosecution) of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to issue a circular to all district attorneys, deputy district attorneys and assistant district attorneys in their states that Rule 26.21A and 26.22 of Punjab Police Rules on handcuffing have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of “Prem Shankar Shukla versus the Delhi Administration”. Directions have also been issued to circulate among them the judgment in Shukla’s case.

The directions came as Justice Sangwan imposed costs of Rs 10,000 each on Faridkot’s then Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Sewa Singh and Assistant District Attorney/Deputy District Attorney/District Attorney, who have vetted the reply.

Justice Sangwan was hearing a petition filed against former DGP Suresh Arora and other respondent by the World Human Rights Council through counsel Ranjan Lakhanpal alleging that the handcuffing of a “gangster” in 2017 amounted to violation of a High Court order dated September 24, 2008. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment, the Bench had then ruled that handcuffs could not be used except in cases where the Magistrate was approached and permission granted.

In his detailed order, Justice Sangwan referred to the judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla case. Among other things, it said the provisions in paragraph 26.22 that every under-trial accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed was in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Referring to the case, Justice Sangwan asserted Rule 26.21A and 26.22B (1), (d), (e) and (f) of Punjab Police Rules, relied upon by the Superintendent of Police, were held to be unconstitutional. Yet, the Superintendent of Police tried to take shelter of all these provisions.

“It seems that even the assistant district attorney and deputy district attorney attached to the concerned office of SP, had not updated their legal knowledge about the Rule 26 in the light of the Prem Shankar Shukla’s case,” Justice Sangwan added.