The Supreme Court has condemned the Haryana Police for handcuffing and chaining an accused to a hospital bed, directing the State to issue guidelines to ensure strict compliance with Article 22.
In a shocking and disturbing case, the Supreme Court of India has condemned the Haryana Police for their inhumane treatment of an accused person, handcuffing and chaining him to a hospital bed during his detention. The Court found this action to be a violation of the accused's fundamental rights, particularly his right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court, in its recent verdict on February 11, 2025, also took a significant step by directing the Haryana Governmentto issue clear and binding guidelines to the police to prevent such illegal actions in the future. The guidelines must ensure compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution and amend existing rules if necessary.
Background of the Case:
- Case Title: Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Anr
The case arose after the Haryana Police arrested the Appellant, Vihaan Kumar, and subjected him to cruel treatment while in their custody. The police had not informed him of the grounds of his arrest, and during his time in illegal detention, the Appellant was taken to the hospital while handcuffed and chained to the bed. - The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Ruling:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had previously refused to set aside the arrest of the Appellant, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Court expressed its shock at the treatment meted out to the accused, recognizing the violation of his fundamental rights.
Supreme Court’s Judgment:
- Violation of Article 21 (Right to Live with Dignity):
In a strongly-worded judgment, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh expressed their grave concern over the treatment of the Appellant, describing it as a violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court observed:
“Before we part with this judgment, we must refer to the shocking treatment given to the appellant by the police. He was taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital bed. This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. We, therefore, propose to direct the State Government to issue necessary directions to ensure that such illegalities are never committed.” - Directive to the Haryana Government:
The Supreme Court directed the Haryana Government to take immediate action by issuing guidelines to the police, specifically addressing the use of handcuffs and chains when an accused is in a hospital. The guidelines must also ensure compliance with the constitutional safeguards of Article 22, which protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention. The Court further instructed the Haryana Government to amend its rules if necessary to ensure strict adherence.The Court stated:
“The State of Haryana shall issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police (i) to ensure that the act of handcuffing an accused while he is on a hospital bed and tying him to the hospital bed is not committed again. (ii) to ensure that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed. If necessary, the State Government shall amend the existing Rules/guidelines.”
Other Key Observations in the Judgment:
- Illegal Arrest and Violation of Article 22:
The Supreme Court also ruled that the arrest of the Appellant was illegal because the police had failed to inform him of the grounds for his arrest, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. This ruling emphasizes the importance of constitutional protections for individuals when arrested, ensuring that arrested persons are informed of the reasons for their detention and their right to consult a legal practitioner.The Court observed:
“Arrest Illegal If Reasons Not Informed; When Art 22(1) Is Violated, Court Must Grant Bail Despite Statutory Restrictions.” - Informing Relatives Is Not Enough:
The Court also clarified that simply informing an arrestee's relatives is not enough to comply with the legal duty to inform the arrestee of the grounds for their arrest. The duty to inform lies directly with the arresting authorities and must be communicated to the arrestee in clear terms.
Case Title: VIHAAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024
Attachment:
