Indian Constitution

Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi - RSS Publication Organizer Pre Censorship Case Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi  Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 129, 1950 SCR 605  Author: S Fazal Ali Bench: Fazal Ali, Saiyid  PETITIONER: BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER  Vs.  RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI.  DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/05/1950  BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ) SASTRI, M. PATANJALI MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MUKHERJEA, B.K. The imposition of censorship on a journal previous to its publication would amount to an infringement of Article 19(1)(a). The question of validity of censorship came up for consideration in the case the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, in pursuance of Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, as application in Delhi, issued an order against the printer, publisher, editor of an English Weekly of Delhi, called the Organizer, directing them to submit for scrutiny in duplicate before publicat

Citizen for Democracy vs State of Assam Case Point COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BENCH: BENCH: KULDIP SINGH & N. VENKATACHALA PETITIONER: CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY  RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.  DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/1995  In the case of Citizen for Democracy vs State of Assam the Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the violation of the law laid down by the Court in Prem Shankar Shukla case against handcuffing of under trial or convicted prisoners by the police authorities. In the present case Mr. Kuldip Nayar who was an eminent journalist in his capacity as president of "Citizen for Democracy" through a letter brought out the notice of the Supreme Court that the seven TADA detenues lodged in the hospital in the State of Assam were handcuffed and tied with a long rope to check their movement. Security guards were also posted outside the hospital. The Court treated the letter as a letter petition in its epistolary jourisdiction und

Sunil Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh Case Point: In the case of Sunil Gupta vs State of M.P. the petitioners were educated persons and social workers, who were remanded to judicial custody were taken to court from jail and back from court to the prison by the escort party handcuffed. They had staged a dharna for a public cause and voluntarity submitted themselves for arrest. They had no tendency to escape from the jail. In fact, they even refused to come out on bail but chose to continue in prison of the public cause. It was held that this act of the escort party was violative of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There was no reason recorded by the escort party in writing for this inhuman act. The Court directed to the Government to take appropriate action against the erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing the petitioner. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Handcuffing and parading  of offenders; escort party to record and  intimate

Right Against Handcuffing - Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration Case In a landmark judgment (Prem Shankar vs Delhi Administration) Supreme Court added a projectile in its armoury to be used against the war for prison reform and prisoners rights. In this case the validity of some clauses of Punjab Police Rules were challenged as violation of Trinity i.e. Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice Krishna Iyer while delivering the majority judgment held that provisions that every under trial who was accused of a non bailable offence punishable with more than three years jail term would be handcuffed, were violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. Handcuffing should be resorted to only when there is a "clear and present danger of escape" breaking out the police control and for this there must be clear material, not merely an assumption. In special instances the application of iron is not ruled out. But even where in extreme cases, ha