HC orders ₹50,000 for unnecessary handcuffing of lawyer, ex-serviceman
A division bench of justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta held that law enforcement authorities must uphold not only legal procedure but also the rights and dignity of individuals. "Those entrusted with administering the law owe a duty not just to the accused or the victim, but to the state and society at large," the court said, adding that such incidents erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The court ordered the compensation to be paid within eight weeks to advocate Yogeshwar Kawade and former serviceman Avinash Date, observing that the duo was subjected to an "unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of India" and hence they were entitled to compensation.
According to their petition, the two had visited the Talegaon Police Station in Amravati district in August 2010 to file a complaint against a man who allegedly damaged Date's car. The man, however, lodged a cross-complaint claiming that the two manhandled and threatened him.
Based on this, the police allegedly detained Kawade and Date after midnight, forced them to strip, and made them sit in their undergarments. The following day, they were handcuffed and taken by a state transport bus to a magistrate's court, where the magistrate ordered the handcuffs to be removed and granted them bail.
The petitioners argued that the police action was illegal and defamatory, pointing out that they were neither habitual offenders nor hardened criminals, making the use of handcuffs unjustified. While the superintendent of police, Amravati, submitted that departmental action had been taken against the erring officers, the high court held that such measures alone were insufficient.
Emphasising the need for effective redress, the bench said that where fundamental rights are violated, courts must go beyond mere declarations and ensure monetary compensation. "To repair the wrong done and provide judicial redress for a legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience," the court observed.
Key Insights
- This topic is currently trending
- Experts are closely monitoring developments
- It may impact future decisions
