Comparison of handcuff laws in india and singapore

Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict irons is to resort zoological strategies repugnant to Art. 21. Thus, we must critically examine the justification offered by State for this mode of restraint. Surely, the competing claims of securing the prisoners from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonised. To prevent the escape of an under trail is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself, be castigated. But to bind a man hand - and – foot fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture. Insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing. There are other measures whereby an escort can keep safe custody of a detenu without the indignity and cruelty implicits in handcuffs or other iron contraptions. Indeed, binding together either the hands or feet or both has not merely a preventive impact, but also a punitive hurtfulness. Manacles are mayhem on the human person and inflict humiliation on the bearer.