1988 (8) TMI 424 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court mandates rules on handcuffing accused, urges government to activate Advocates Act provision

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to frame rules on handcuffing accused individuals and circulate them to all State Governments and Union ... Handcuffing of accused - right of advocates to practise - mandamus to consider exercise of executive discretion - duty of the Executive to apply its mind - rule of law - just, reasonable and fair exercise of discretionHandcuffing of accused - Prem Shankar Shukla - Union of India directed to frame and circulate guidelines on circumstances in which handcuffing of arrested persons may be resorted to, in conformity with this Court's decision in Prem Shankar Shukla. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that police instructions consistent with Prem Shankar Shukla had not been adequately issued and that the Union Government is responsible for circulating necessary guidelines to State Governments and Union Territories. In light of the admitted responsibility and the need to conform police practice to established precedent, the Court directed the Union to frame rules or guidelines stating circumstances in which handcuffing should be resorted to, in conformity with the said judgment, and to circulate them to all States and Union Territories. Compliance was ordered within three months.Union of India directed to frame and circulate handcuffing guidelines within three months.Right of advocates to practise - mandamus to consider exercise of executive discretion - duty of the Executive to apply its mind - Central Government cannot be mandatorily compelled to bring section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 into force, but may be directed by writ to consider within a specified time whether to bring it into force. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the principle from A.K. Roy that a mandamus cannot compel the Executive to bring into force a statutory provision when Parliament has left the date to the Executive's unfettered discretion. However, the Court held that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and that the Executive must apply its mind to the question. Given the long lapse of time since enactment and repeated representations, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to consider within six months whether section 30 should be brought into force, while leaving the ultimate decision to the Government's considered discretion.Writ issued directing the Central Government to consider within six months whether to bring section 30 into force; no writ compelling immediate enforcement of section 30.Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed: Union of India directed to frame and circulate handcuffing guidelines within three months; Central Government ordered by mandamus to consider within six months whether to bring section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 into force, without compelling its exercise of discretion. Issues involved: Alleged handcuffing of an advocate contrary to law and non-implementation of section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.Handcuffing Issue: The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to frame rules regarding the circumstances in which accused individuals should be handcuffed, in line with a previous judgment. The Court emphasized the need for guidelines on handcuffing and instructed the Union of India to circulate these rules among all State Governments and Union Territories within three months.Section 30 of Advocates Act: The Court discussed the non-implementation of section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants advocates the right to practice throughout the territories covered by the Act. Despite the Act being in force for over 25 years, section 30 had not been brought into effect. The Court highlighted that certain laws still restrict advocates from appearing before specific courts and tribunals, despite the evolving legal landscape favoring advocate representation.Legal Mandamus: While acknowledging the discretion given to the Central Government by Parliament regarding the enforcement of statutory provisions, the Court cited a previous decision that prevented issuing a mandamus to compel the government to bring a statute into force. However, the Court clarified that it could direct the Central Government to consider activating section 30 of the Advocates Act within a reasonable time frame. The Court stressed the importance of the government exercising its discretion fairly and reasonably, considering the prolonged delay since the Act's enactment.Conclusion: The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to the Central Government, directing it to evaluate whether section 30 of the Advocates Act should be implemented within six months. The Court emphasized the need for the government to make a decision on activating this provision, given the significant time elapsed since the Act's passage.