Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1535)

The following paper focuses on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration and lays out the decision of the Supreme Court and its analysis in relation to various laws and legislations and in the light of decided cases in India. The paper will hermeneutically interpret the case from the petitioner and respondent’s side and further elucidate on the various laws in relation to the case.  Further the most prominent factor of the paper involves the principle wherein it was held and contended that “handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and at first blush arbitrary without fair procedure and objective monitoring.” The paper will therefore analyse the relation of this principle with various statutes and law and further interpret the laws of handcuffing in and around the world. The paper will also statistically review the analysis of this judgment and derive an expository conclusion in reference to the judgment of this case and then deduct plausible recommendations and suggestions. Finally the paper will evaluate how the case has shaped the present provisions and how it would help in creating and implementing better laws in the future.

Brief Characteristics of the Case

Name of the casePrem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration
CitationAIR 1980 SC 1535
Year of the case29th April, 1980
AppellantPrem Shankar Shukla
RespondentDelhi Administration
Bench/ JudgesKrishnaiyer, V.R. Pathak, R.S. Reddy, O. Chinnappa
Acts involvedThe Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; The Constitution of India, 1949
Important SectionsSection 49, 50 & 51 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 32(1) of The Constitution of India, 1949


The case of Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration[1] was one of the landmark cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matters and provisionality of Law of Crimes regarding to whether hand-cuffing was constitutionally valid or not. In the following case the petitioner was a prisoner under-trial and was kept at the Tihar Jail.  While being taken to court every day for various pending matters and judgments he would be handcuffed by the officer in charge or on duty on that particular day. Though the Trial court had given its hearing that handcuffs should not be used and made applicable while taking the petitioner to the court and back for the proceedings, but still the escorting officers continued the same. In furtherance to the proceedings and continuance of disobeyance of the orders of the Trial court, the petitioner sent a telegram to one of the judges of the Supreme Court complaining and mentioning about this torture and humiliation. Also the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court which was duly entertained based on the question whether hand-cuffing is constitutionality valid or not?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court contending on the present case reviewed and extended that “handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and at first blush arbitrary without fair procedure and objective monitoring.” The court further stated that it understands the purpose of handcuffs to not allow prisoners to run away, but reinstated that it is not compulsorily mandated and required necessary at all the times. The opined court also stated that handcuffing a prisoner is also against the law and provisions of the Constitution of India particularly Article 14, 19 and 21[2] and also violates the basic and quintessential dignity of humans guaranteed and enshrined by the laws of the country.

Adding to the contention the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “to bind a man hand-and-foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.” Also it was further justified that even though the orders from the Superiors state that handcuffing is necessary and important it should only be validated if it is absolutely sufficient and necessary. Also if there is no strict supervision required or there are stringent orders then handcuffing should not be done and should be avoided in maximum possible capacity since a person in jail having appearances in court means that he has not been declared a violator of the law of land and therefore should not be subjected to such treatment and humiliation until proven guilty.

Also it is to be noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also stated that the nature and capability of the accused should be understood in order to realize whether it is absolutely necessary for the authorities to handcuff him or her or not. And if yes then the authorities should make sure that they perform such obligations in an appropriate and organised manner and no harm is caused to humiliation and reputation of the accused. Also it was clarified that the handcuffing of prisoners is inhuman and treating them like animals what we call as inflicting the use of chairs or irons and it is violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India[3]. Also if a person is handcuffed it restraints his or her movement in any direction and this is also violative of the Article 19 of Constitution of India[4].

The court in this landmark judgment has given various directions for provisions regarding handcuffs which are as follows:

  1. Handcuffs can only be made applicable to a person involved in:
    1. serious non-bailable offence
    1. person of desperate character
    1. who is violent in nature
    1. person likely to commit suicide
    1. person likely to escape
  2. The reason for application of handcuffs must be explicitly mentioned in the Daily Diary Report and it must be admissible in court
  3. If a person is produced before the court, before handcuffing the person prior permission of the court must be taken in order to handcuff the accused again
  4. When a person is produced before the court, the magistrate responsible for the same must ask whether the person has been subjected to wearing handcuffs and if yes, then the reason should be entertained and scrutinised.

Finally the court in this case strict down the Punjab Police Rules which discriminated between the rich and the poor for people who can be subjected to wearing handcuffs and not and further held that when a prisoner is handcuffed and the officer in charge does not have a valid reason then he would be held violative of the provisions enshrined within the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Background of the Case

It is now a mandate that any arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his or her arrest. From that point of time the person will be remanded to custody only with a judicial order. If a judicial order is obtained then the arrested person will be taken to the court from the jail and back to the jail by an escorting party provided by the police, and this escorting party is the sole person responsible for the conduct and safety of the under trial prisoners. Handcuffing used to happen in cases when the prisoner is violent and aggressive. Earlier handcuffs were merely used for extraneous considerations and on the convenience of the escort party either for humiliation or for actual punishment situations.

No Handcuff is General Rule

Every police officer is vested with power to handcuff a person and to restraint him, but also there is a restriction by the law on the police office on how and when he can use the power to put restraint and handcuff the person. The handcuffs should not be used on convenience of the escorting officer and should not be mandated in routine use. Every under trial prisoner is entitled to freedom of movement as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and this right cannot be curtailed and looped down. This cruelty and application of handcuffs should not be used unless necessarily important and regulated and instructed by the court of law and the same was reiterated in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.[5]

When handcuffs can be used?

The police rules and mandate clearly regulate and specify that the handcuffs can be given only in dangerous and certain situations when the prisoner is desperate, or when he is likely to break out of custody and perform the vanishing act or trick. The escorting party must know the fact on how the same can be put into action and also should know whether the prisoner is dangerous and is to be handcuffed on basis of his antecedent history.[6] Further escorting parties must contemporaneously record the reasons for handcuffing the prisoner and should detail the reasons in front of a magistrate and obtain a judicial order in order to perform such an action or necessitate as in the case of Sunil Gupta v. State of M.P.[7]

Duty of Superior Officer of Police

The instructions given by the Supreme Court and the guidelines laid down must be followed and mandated by the D.G. of Police to escort a constable with the under trial prisoner and from I.G. of Prisons to Jail wardens taking care of such prisoners when in the vicinity of the jail premises. These officials must make sure that a person when escorted out of the jail or into the jail, if handcuffed the reasons for the same must be elucidated explicitly and should be recorded in the relevant diary of record in the police station. Any non-performance or non-observance should result in disciplinary action against the said culprit. Further the escorts should be checked upon and all the senior officials must be bound by duty to see that all the guidelines by the Supreme Court are followed and put to practice.[8]

Literature Review

The research undertaken included several secondary sources of data collection and references from existing as well as concurrent research papers and analysis.The researcher developed and inculcated research on the present topic based on various sources which included several books and works of authors. Here is an analysis of what various authors and books have mentioned and elucidated about this landmark case.

Section 49 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[9]

The following Section clearly states on the importance of not restraining a person unnecessarily and further adds that a person should not be subjected to more restraint than absolutely necessary and implied by law to do so for the sake of the law and land and avoid negligence on part of the law.

Article 32 (1) – The Constitution of India, 1949[10]

The Article elucidates that every person has right to move the court in an appropriate and specified manner for the rights mentioned in the scheduled part and if those rights mentioned under this Part have been violated.

Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration II[11]

In the following case the court held that “handcuffs and irons bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our goal of human dignity and social justice.”

Citizens for Democracy V. State of Assam[12]

In this case the court elaborated on the fact that for use of handcuffs on accused by the officers in charge prior permission is necessary as in the case of arrest with warrant, however in the case if an arrest warrant is not issued then the police can detain and handcuff the accused until produced before the magistrate in charge or appointed.

Facts, Issues, Judgment and Concept Highlighted

In the present case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration the Supreme Court noted and stated the fact that the practice of handcuffing and fettering the prisoner by the police officials is objectionable and questionable. The Supreme Court had further raised questions and doubts and put restrictions on the police’s discretionary power to handcuff prisoners. In the following case the plaintiff, Prem Shankar Shukla had sent a telegram as an undertrial prisoner to the Apex court, when he was being taken from jail to the magistrate’s court and back. A habeas corpus petition was duly administered in the court of law and Justice Krishna Iyer felt it to be consistent with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and held that “no prisoner shall be… fettered routinely or for the convenience of the escort or custodian.”[13]

Further the court held that in certain cases which involve extremity where handcuffs are mandatory to be used, the escorting party must record and mention and contemporaneity the reason for doing such an act. Further the court also stated that it was arbitrary and quite contrary to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India to classify prisoners into “better class” or “under class”. [14]

The ruling by the court of law for the current judgment was given in 1980, however the rules and necessary guidelines were only declared and added in 1988. The guidelines highlighted the fact that the handcuffs cannot be used on the convenience of the custodians and that handcuffing can be avoided by adopting better strategies like increasing the strength of the armed forces or escorts, or by commuting and transferring the prisoners in well protected and modified vans. Further in consistency and accordance with these guidelines, each state had issued a different police manual for its people depending upon the statutory provisions and rules governing that boundary or periphery.

In the following case Justice Krishna Iyer had eloquently stated that “The guaranty of human dignity which forms parts of our constitutional culture…. Springs into action when we realise that to manacle a man is more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanise him and therefore, to violate his very personhood too often using the mask of dangerousness and security.”[15] From the following context what we can infer is that the facts in this case are largely beyond dispute and that brief narration is required by law so that the case and its analysis and interpretation can be further accessed, discussed and declared. Adding to the contentions raised in this case it is to be noted that in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[16] it was stated and elucidated that humanistically it should be assumed that a prisoner is a human and not an animal and that an under-trial prisoner is a fortiori and thus a prisoner should not be discriminated based on his class or should not be treated unlike any other ordinary human being. [17]

To understand the judgment and analysis of the case it is important to know the facts. In the present case a prisoner sent a telegram to the judge of the apex court complaining of handcuffs which he was forced to put on himself, he filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of all the other prisoners implicitly protesting against the humiliation and torture of being held in irons in public, back and forth, when kept in custody in Tihar jail and were being taken to the Delhi courts as under-trail prisoners.

Further what happened is that despite the petitioners complaint and courts direction to stop using irons on him, it continued to persist and this actually was the sole reason which led him to send a litany to the Supreme Court which is the most superior and functional sentinel on the qui vive where habeas writ and justice is in jeopardy. If there is question before the court of law regarding handcuffing of a prisoner and irons, it should fling aside forms of procedure and decide and defend the complainant in accordance with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India[18].   Also the case must be read in light of Article 32 which states that access to human justice is the essence of the Constitution of India and sensitized by the dynamic perspective of the same case, the facts and questions to law have been examined and interpreted.

Further the court of law and the counsels in the present case contended using and interpreting Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] And further analysed Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which reads that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” [20] further we can contemplate the case by analysing the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter which read as follows “the history of liberty has been largely the history of observance of procedural safeguards.”[21] Also in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India it was held that “the ambit of personal liberty protected by Article 21 is wide and comprehensive and it embraces both substantive rights to personal liberty and the procedure provide for their deprivation.”[22]

Related Provisions

The following case can be read with various rules and provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and The Constitution of India, 1950. In order to understand and analyse the case we would deal with each provision under law separately.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[23]

Section 49 – No Unnecessary Restraint[24]

“This particular section states that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

Section 50 – Person Arrested to be Informed on the Grounds of Arrest and of Right to Bail[25]

“Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”

“Where a police officer arrest without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.”

Section 51 – Search of Arrested Person [26]

“Whenever a person is arrested by a police officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody all articles, other, than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him and where any article is seized from the arrested person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer shall be given to such person.”

“Whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency.”

The Constitution of India, 1949

Article 32 – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part[27]

  1. “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed;
  2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part;
  3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court the parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court;
  4. The rights guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided by this Constitution.”[28]

Related cases

In India, handcuffing and fettering of prisoners is not allowed but is still widely prevalent despite so many judicial interpretations which clearly establish that it is against the principles of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Case laws relating to the law and issue of handcuffing in India are considered to be the most progressive in the world. it has been noted that in one case the Madras High court has ordered two constables to pay five thousand rupees since they handcuffed a detainee without permission from the judicial magistrate and without any judicial order. [29]

In the present case presented the court had clearly held that handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and at first blush arbitrary without fair procedure and objective monitoring. The court recognized the need to secure the prisoner from fleeing but asserted that this does not compulsorily require handcuffing. [30] In furtherance to the same the court held and laid down certain guidelines in respect of law for handcuffing which states as follows:

  1. “Handcuffs can only be used if a person is involved in a serious non-bailable offence, and has been previously convicted of a crime, or is of desperate character, violent, disorderly or obstructive in nature or is likely to commit suicide or is likely to attempt the act of escape;
  2. The reasons for handcuffing must be clearly laid down and specified in the Police Daily Diary in order to reduce discretion.
  3. Police must first seek judicial permission for the use of restraint during arrest or on a detainee.
  4. At first production of an arrested person, the magistrate must inquire whether handcuffs or fetter were used, and if so, demand an explanation.”[31]

In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration the court held that “handcuffs and irons bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our goal of human dignity and social justice.”[32] Further in the case of Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam it was elucidated that “upon the requirement of prior judicial approval for the use of handcuffs. In case of an arrest with a warrant, handcuffs can be used only with the prior permission of the magistrate, in case of warrantless arrests, handcuffs can be used by police satisfying the requirements of law till the time the person is produced before the magistrate which permission is to be sought. The court further went a step further in standing the violations of directives on handcuffing by any rank of police officer or member of the jail establishment to be punishable under contempt of Court Act 1971 in addition to the provisions of the law.”[33]

The reason why the use of handcuffs should be reduced is because the humiliation of prisoner should not be highlighted and put out in public. Every person either a detainee or an ordinary citizen is provided with the right to live with dignity and this right cannot be depredated or reduced hereby. It is these principles which form the crux and bedrock of democratic societies that even criminals are treated with dignity in a modern society. It is however a sad fact that even after 32 years of the issuance of these guidelines the handcuffing of prisoners continues to prevail and exist in this so called democratic and modern society. [34]

Further in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[35] it was contended that “handcuffing is prime facie inhuman, and therefore unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first blush arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring to inflict irons is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21. The competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonized. To prevent the escape of an under trail is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself be castigated. But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our Constitutional culture.”[36]

Also in the case of N.H. Hoskot v. Maharashtra[37] it was contended that “implicit in the power to deprive the sentence of his personal liberty, the court has to ensure that no more and no less than is warranted, by the sentence happens. If the prisoner breaks down because of mental torture, psychic pressure or physical infliction beyond the licit limits of lawful imprisonment the prison administration shall be liable for the excess. On the contrary, if an influential convict is able to buy advantages and liberties to avoid or water down the deprivation implied in the sentence the prison establishment will be called to order for such adulteration or dilution of court sentence by executive palliation, if unwarranted by law.”[38]

Comparison of Handcuffing laws in India to the World

In comparison to other world countries the Indian laws dealing with handcuffing are quire progressive and futuristic. In some countries like the United States of America and United Kingdom the laws on handcuffing is viewed as an accepted practice while effecting arrests and escorting prisoners. In UK there are certain statutory provisions and case laws which the govern the use of handcuffs. In Australia there is diary and a handbook known as the Police Service Handbook in the province of New South Wales which states that an officer is justified in handcuffing prisoners if they try to escape or prevent them from hurting themselves or causing injuries to others.[39]  In America courts have justified and validated police officers handcuffing prisoners while taking them to jail and court likewise since by the adoption of this practice the suspect cannot grab a weapon and attack the escorting police officers or agents on official duty. Further the European Court of Human Right interpreting the Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention[40] which upholds the freedom to degrade treatments, states that handcuffing can be ordered to restrain a person during a lawful arrest or to prevent him from escaping.[41]


  1. The practical difficulties faced by the police in executing the process of handcuffing and laws relating to the same should be taken into account and deliberated.
  2. There is a loophole in the current policy that if a prisoner who has no record of previous crimes, is of violent nature but the police officer or escort is unaware and creates any nuisance the blame should not be on the escorting officer.
  3. The procedure of requesting for handcuffs should be more uniform in applicability and should not be done assisting a person’s past attributes or nature since these are changing frequencies.
  4. Another recommendation is that another patrolling team should be on surveillance when the prisoner is escorted from the jail to the court and back since the escorting officer has no means to determine and verify the strength of the under trail prisoner.
  5. When the police officer is alone with the prisoner it is a big risk on his safety and the safety of fellow bystanders.
  6. There should be increase of prison vans with better modifications and more secure vehicles should be implemented in practice to ensure safety and security of both the prisoner and the escorting officers.
  7. The guidelines or directives mentioned by the apex court state that handcuffs must be used on prisoners who are violent in nature or might escape, but there is no test to prove their nature or behaviour and assessing their nature of individualism based on their antecedents is unjust and unreasonable since behaviour and nature are attributes are frequencies which keep on altering and changing based on situations.


In the present case it was held and contended that handcuffing is prima facie unreasonable and arbitrary and based on such conventions the apex court laid down certain directives and guidelines to be followed and made mandated by everyone. Further it was said that preventing the escape of an under-trail is in public interest, reasonable and just and it cannot be castigated. The statement further reiterated the fact that there are other measures which can be adopted to make sure that the custody of a detenu is kept safe and secured without cruelty and indignity being implicit in the method adopted. We should agree with the contentions raised in the prevent case that manacles are mayhem on the human body and inflict humiliation on the bearer for no reason of fault since the person is an under trail prisoner and still left to be convicted.[42]

Further it is to be considered that fetters or handcuffs should not be inflicted on a person who is an under-trail prisoner unnecessarily just for the sake or convenience of the escort. Further it should be understood and analysed by everyone that where there is no need to manacle a person and it happens, it is sadistic, capricious despotic and demoralizing to humble a man by manacling him. It should be known that handcuffing is to hoop harshly and to punish humiliatingly and this cannot be resorted to for ensuring security, and handcuffs must be adopted as the last refuge. Also no prisoner shall be fettered or handcuffed routinely for the sake or convenience of the prisoner and also functional compulsions of security must reach that dismal degree whereon alternative will work except manacles.

Also in extreme situations when handcuffing is the only option, the intending officer or escort must have contemporaneously the reasons and justifications for taking such a step and must have secured a judicial order from the magistrate. Further it should be noted that since a person is charged with a grave or serious offence does not give the liberty to the escort or officials to handcuff him. Also all prisoners should not be placed on the same footing unless there is a rational classification already mentioned and adhered upon by the court of law or provisions of law such as age, health, occupational needs or academic circumstances.

Also a police officer when vested with power to restrain a person by handcuffing him must not otherwise completely necessary and it cannot do without the same. Also if a police officer makes arbitrary uses of his power then he would be subject to provisions under use of malicious power under Section 220 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[43] and Sections 46 and 49 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973[44] which define the parameters of the power envisaged upon these officers by the code and law while restraining a prisoner under trial. Finally what this Section means and elucidates is that the person or authority in charge of such cases where under-trial prisoners are at stake must ensure that each prisoner is handled separately and there is no commonness in techniques adopted or used. Also the question whether the prisoner should be handcuffed and fettered or not should be taken on the basis of the circumstances, general conduct, behaviours and character.

In the ultimate analysis of determination, once each individuals case is analysed the case circumstances must determine what amount of restraint should be imposed and to what degree of the same. The social status, education and habit of life of persons should be intended to protect the dignity of the person. Therefore from the above contentions we can conclude that the handcuffs should be used on prisoners on a restrictive basis and it should be the last resort. Further rather than analysing the persons past behaviour and antecedents in deciding the question as to whether handcuff is mandatory or not some other medium should be formulated in accordance with the provisions of the law. Every individual should be respectfully governed by the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India by Articles 14, 19 and 21 and further every under trial prisoner should be treated with dignity and given the freedom to movement irrespective of the nature and heinousity of the crime committed and performed, it should finally be rational and not arbitrary.[45]


  1. How can the case of Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration be interpreted and hermeneutically analysed?
  2. Whether handcuffing of a prisoner actually violates the fundamental rights of the person enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
  3. Whether handcuffing laws in India is similar to the world?
  4. Can the case and decision given by the Supreme Court change the way we look at the current legislative provisions?
  5. How various decided cases have contributed to the judgment in this case?
  6. Whether there is scope and room for improvement in the already existing laws for such contentions?


[1]AIR 1980 SC 1535

[2] The Constitution of India, 1949

[3] The Constitution of India, 1949

[4] The Constitution of India, 1949

[5] 1978 SC 1675

[6] AIR 1980 SC 1535

[7] 1990 SCC 1674


[9], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 49

[10], The Constitution of India, Article 32

[11]1980 AIR 1579

[12]1995 (3) SCR 943 

[13] AIR 1980 SC 1535                                                                          



[16] (1978) 4 SCC 494


[18] The Constitution of India, 1950

[19] Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

[20] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 10

[21] Justice Felix Frankfurter,

[22] (1978) 2 SCR 621 p. 647


[24] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[25] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[26] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[27] The Constitution of India, 1949



[30] AIR 1980 SC 1535


[32] 1980 AIR 1579                                                                                                                 

[33] 1995 (3) SCR 943 


[35] 1978 2 SCR 621


[37] 1979 1 SCR 192



[40] Human Rights Convention – Article 3 ICERD, 21 December 1965


[42] The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol II (1973 Edn), at p.53 states

[43] India Penal Code, 1860

[44] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973













Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *