Gauhati High Court Directs Assam Police To Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Advocate For Handcuffing Him Without Just Cause

The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday directed the Assam Police to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to an Advocate for handcuffing him without just cause.

The single judge bench of Justice Devashis Baruah observed that the act of police to handcuff the said advocate without just cause violates the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“…..the Petitioner is an Advocate and handcuffing the Petitioner and parading him by taking him to the Court and thereafter back to the jail with iron fetters that too without just cause being shown, not only violates the human rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but also demeans his dignity and prestige to carry out his profession of advocacy,” Justice Baruah said.

The facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by one of the Home Guards of the Assam Police alleging that the Petitioner had on October 05, 2016, manhandled him, as the informant did not allow the Petitioner to park his car near his house.

Based on the said FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 325, 341 and 353 of IPC. A counter FIR under Sections 294, 323, 392 and 511 was also filed by the petitioner against the said home guard alleging that he had verbally and physically abused the petitioner and tried to snatch the bag of the petitioner which contained Rs.10,000/-.

It was the case of the petitioner that in violation of all mandates of law and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, the petitioner was handcuffed in the police station and was taken to the MMC Hospital, Panbazar for his medical checkup in handcuffed condition.

It was further alleged that on October 06, 2016, when the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup (M), he was again handcuffed and on his way back to the police vehicle and was under continuously handcuffed condition throughout his journey from the Court of the CJM at Kachari to Central Jail, Guwahati at Lokhra which is about 20 km.

It is to be noted that the petitioner was acquitted in the above-mentioned criminal case against him by a judgment dated June 04, 2020, and the Investigating Officer (IO) during the course of the trial had admitted that he had handcuffed the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the act of handcuffing, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on September 18, 2020, vindicating his grievances for violation of his basic human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, vide order dated March 30, 2021, the said complaint filed by the petitioner was closed by AHRC on the ground that the charged officer had expired.

The petitioner therefore being aggrieved approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing of the order dated March 30, 2021 and for a direction upon the respondents and each one of them to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for violating his basic fundamental rights by handcuffing the petitioner without just cause.

The Court noted that in his cross-examination, the IO had categorically admitted that he had handcuffed the petitioner. It was further noted by the Court that except Section 353, all charges against the petitioner were in respect of bailable offences.

The following two issues were before the Court to determine:

1. Whether the petitioner who was arrested could have been handcuffed and if so, under what circumstances?
2. If there is any violation by the arresting officer, would the petitioner be entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount?

After referring to Sections 46 and 49 of CrPC; Section 220 of IPC and Rule 214 of Assam Police Manual and jurisprudence laid down in pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526 and Citizens for Democracy Through Its President v. State of Assam and Others (1995) 3 SCC 743, the Court noted that IO has acted contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned three cases and violated the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…..as it was the burden upon the custodian of the detenu to explain the reasons why the Petitioner was handcuffed and apparent failure on the part of the Respondents to show the reasons that too when the Petitioner himself surrendered clearly shows that the Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Investigating Officer had acted contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the three judgments referred to hereinabove,” the Court said.

While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Court observed that the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner for handcuffing him without just cause thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further noted that the compensation which is required to be paid is by applying the principles of strict liability.

The Court remarked:

“The imposition of compensation should also be such that the concerned police officer should follow the applicable law in both letter and spirit and are put on notice that non following of applicable law could result in they being liable to make payment of monetary compensation to the arrestee. In normal circumstances, a direction is to be issued to the State to make payment of compensation and the compensation so paid be recovered from the arresting Officer who had put the handcuffs but in the instant case as the arresting officer has already expired, this Court is of the opinion that such directions would not be proper.”

Thus, the Court directed the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within 2 months.

“Before parting with the records, this Court finds it relevant to observe that it is high time that the Assam Police Manual is required to be amended by the Authorities concerned so that the principles laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra (supra), Prem Shankar Shukla (supra) and Citizens for Democracy (supra) as above noted are engrafted to the Assam Police Manual. This Court believes and expects that the Authorities concerned would very soon take note of the suggestion made herein and do the needful,” the Court added.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 110

Case Title: Sabah Al Zarid v. The State of Assam & 3 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/2783/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order