The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to pay ₹50,000 each to a lawyer and an ex-serviceman who were illegally handcuffed and paraded in public by police. The court held that the officers’ actions subjected the citizens to “unwarranted humiliation and indignity” that violated their fundamental rights.
The case centered on whether the police action of handcuffing individuals who were not hardened criminals or flight risks—and parading them on public transport—constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court had to decide if departmental action against the errant officers was sufficient or if the state was liable to provide monetary compensation for the “legal injury” caused to the petitioners’ reputation.
The incident dates back to August 2010. The petitioners, Yogeshwar Kawade (a lawyer) and Avinash Date (an ex-serviceman), visited the Talegaon police station in Amravati district to lodge a complaint regarding damage to Date’s car. However, the individual they complained against filed a cross-complaint, alleging manhandling and threats.
According to the petition, the police detained Kawade and Date after midnight, stripped them, and forced them to sit in their undergarments. The following day, the duo was handcuffed and escorted on a state transport bus from the police station to the tehsildar’s office for their bail hearing. Upon seeing them in irons, the tehsildar immediately ordered the police to remove the handcuffs before granting them bail.
The petitioners contended that they were neither habitual offenders nor hardened criminals, making the use of handcuffs illegal and a direct assault on their social reputation. They sought judicial redress for the “unwarranted indignity” they suffered at the hands of the state machinery.
In response, the Amravati Superintendent of Police informed the court that an internal inquiry had already been conducted against the assistant police inspector and two constables involved. The state argued that necessary administrative action had been taken against the errant personnel.
A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta emphasized that the police must uphold their motto, “Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya” (To protect the good and punish the evil). The bench noted that police misconduct of this nature “usually tend to deplete the confidence in our criminal justice system much more than those incidents involving private individuals.”
The court observed that those administering the law have a duty not just to the parties involved, but to the community at large. On the issue of compensation, the judges stated:
“Where there is infringement of the fundamental right, the court cannot be stopped by giving a mere declaration that action has been taken. The court must proceed further and give compensatory relief for the wrong done.”
The bench further noted that the act of taking the duo on a public bus while handcuffed was a deliberate act of humiliation. “To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience,” the court remarked.
The High Court held the state government liable for the infringement of the petitioners’ rights and ordered a compensation of ₹50,000 to be paid to each petitioner within eight weeks. The court reaffirmed that such “indignity cannot be done to any citizen of India.”
