Whenever the Superintendent considers it necessary (with reference either to the state of the prison or the character of the prisoners) for the safe custody of any prisoners that they should be confined in irons, he may, subject to such rules and instructions as may be laid down by the Inspector General with the sanction of the State Government, so confine them.
SYNOPSIS
1. Confinement in irons- Only in gravest situation.
3. Order to remove leg irons from the feet of the undertrial prisoners and to desist from taking work from them.
2. Legal aid- To undertrial prisoners a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution.
4. Removal of fetters—Not to be ordered by Sessions Judge as visitor of jail.
1. Confinement in irons—Only in gravest situation.—To fetter prisoners in irons is an inhumanity unjustified save where safe custody is otherwise imposible.
The routine resort to handcuffs and irons be speaks aborbority hostile to our goal of human dignity and social justice. [Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 Cri LJ 1099 : AIR 1980 SC 1579 : (1980) 2 SCR 557 : (1980) 4 SCC 488].
2. Legal aid—To undertrial prisoners a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution.— Since the trial Court has not made any profess for the last over eight years. The Session Judge is directed to take the case immediately and to proceed it from day to day without any interruption. These petitioners will be provided legal representation by fairly competent lawyers at the cost of the State since legal aid has been declared to be a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. [Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri Lj 481 at 482 (SC) :
AIR 1981 SC 939].
3. Order to remove leg irons from the feet of the undertrial prisoners and to desist from taking work from them.—The Superintendent of Pakud sub-jail is directed to explain as to why he kept the four petitioners in leg irons contrary to the law of the land and exacted work from them when they are merely undertrial prisoners. [Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri L] 481 at 483 (SC) : AIR 1981 SC 939].
4. Removal of fetters—Not to be ordered by Sessions Judge as visitor of jail.—There is no provision in the Prisons Act or the Rules framed thereunder as found in the manual or any other law which empowers the Sessions Judge to pass order directing removal of fetters placed on the prisoner under the order of the Superintendent who enjoys statutory discretion to confine a person in fetters if considered necessary for his safe custody. [Mathu Ram v. State of HP, 1984 Cri LJ 940 at 942 : 1984 Sim LJ 21 (HP)]