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

This case speaks about the use of handcuffs on an undertrial during travel between jail and court. The Court said: do not handcuff as a routine. Use it only when there are strong, specific reasons and record them. Dignity and fair procedure under Article 21 come first. Class-based exceptions are not allowed.

1. Is routine handcuffing of undertrials constitutional?
2. Do security concerns justify handcuffs without recorded reasons?
3. Can class-based treatment decide who gets handcuffed?

• Article 21: Right to life includes dignity and fair, non-arbitrary procedure.
• Article 14: Equality before law; no arbitrary class-based differences.
• Article 19: Personal freedoms require reasonable, proportional limits.
• Custody measures must be the least restrictive and justified on record.

Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and unreasonable. It should not be used as a routine rule. If the escort thinks restraints are necessary, there must be clear, compelling reasons, recorded on file. Less restrictive methods should be tried first. Class-based differences in handcuffing are unconstitutional. The Court protected dignity and equality under Articles 21 and 14.

• Dignity is part of Article 21. Restraints must be narrow, necessary, and justified.
• Equality under Article 14 forbids class-based handcuff rules.
• Proportionality: choose the least restrictive custody method; record reasons.

This case sets a dignity-first standard in criminal procedure. It guides police, jail staff, and courts to avoid automatic irons and to document reasons when restraints are truly needed.

• No routine handcuffing; record concrete reasons.
• Use the least restrictive method first.
• Class-based exceptions are unconstitutional.
• Article 21 includes dignity; Article 14 bars arbitrariness.

Mnemonic: DIG-PRO-RECORD

• DIG = Dignity first (Article 21).
• PRO = Proportional, least restrictive.
• RECORD = Reasons must be on the record.

3-Step Hook: Ask “Is it necessary?” → Try softer measure → If still needed, record detailed reasons.

Issue: Is routine handcuffing of undertrials constitutional?

Rule: Articles 14, 19, 21; custody must be proportional and justified on record.

Application: No case-specific reasons were recorded; routine irons demean dignity and create class bias.

Conclusion: Routine handcuffing violates Articles 21 and 14; use only with recorded, compelling reasons and less harsh options considered.

Undertrial

A person facing trial who has not been convicted.

Proportionality

State action should be no more restrictive than needed.

Recorded Reasons

Written, specific grounds justifying restraint.