Double Standard!!!

[To read the Article click the image.]

For a Rich man or Politician Law is like spider's web,who enters into it and went out destroying the whole web. But if you are poor you cant come out of it, You have to die there.

Law is Not Blind Now!!!

We often use or hear that “Law is Blind”. It means that Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Article 14 of our Constitution states, “The State shall not deny to any person Equality before the Law or Equal Protection of Laws within the territory of India.”, which means that there is Rule of Law or Supremacy of Law in our country. But the reality is that Law is not Blind Now it can see who is rich or poor.

Now I am going to give some evidence which prove that Law is not blind now. I am an Advocate, just completed my LL.B degree and now have started going to court. In one month I realized that if you have money or political acquaintance Rights Guaranteed by our Constitution is for you otherwise you are no more than an Animal.

Everyday I see accused are being produced before the court with their hands cuffed like animals. Despite the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment on handcuffing in the Citizens for Democracy v/s State of Assam case (AIR 1996, Page 2193), hand cuffing without any reasonable justification amounts to Contempt of Court and also violates Article 14, 19 and 21 of our Constitution. In this case the Apex Court held that-

“Handcuffing of under trials and convicts - Not permissible - The law laid down by Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla's case and Sunil Batra's case and the directions issued the Supreme Court are binding on all concerned and any violation or circumvention shall attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law - Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner in rare cases - Situation and relevant consideration when police and jail authorities handcuffing or putting prisoner under fetters inside or outside jail - Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guidelines given above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate - Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate - Directions issued by the Supreme Court.”

In State of Maharashtra, v. Ravikant S. Patil the petitioner was illegally handcuffed and has been paraded. Patil was an under trial prisoner suspected to be involved in a murder case. He was arrested in Karnataka and was taken to Solapur in the early hours of August 17, 1989. A local newspaper carried a news item to the effect that Patil would be taken in a procession from Faujdar Chavadi Police Station through the main squares of the city for the purpose of investigation. On the same day, he was handcuffed, both his arms were tied with a rope and he was taken through the streets. These facts were never disputed. Patil filed a writ petition seeking censure of the police officers concerned (who were made parties) and damages. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition holding that handcuffing, tying of hands and parading of Patil were unwarranted and that Article 21 had been violated. The High Court directed that Shri Prakash Chavan, Inspector of Police, who was responsible for this, should pay an amount of Rs 10,000 by way of compensation. The High Court also directed that the fact that he had been found guilty of violation of the fundamental rights of an under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution should be entered in his service record.

The State appealed to the Supreme Court along with the concerned official. The Court upheld the judgment of the High Court with regard to violation of Article 21, and also upheld the order directing payment of compensation.

India is a Democratic country where people elect their representative to rule the country according to the provisions laid down in the Constitution. We call India a country where Supremacy of Law or Supremacy of Constitution prevails but, the stark reality is that there is no Rule of Law for a poor or a person who has no political connection. One day I saw Rajan Tiwari a former MLA and accused of extortion. He was being taken to the court from jail as soon as he came out the media persons surrounded him and took photos. I noticed that he was not hand cuffed he came like a hero and had a photo session then taken to the court. It was good that he was not hand cuffed as he has a right not to be hand cuffed. But, why a poor is hand cuffed even if he has been arrested for petty offences? Don’t they have these rights? Even if a frail person or a Juvenile is not spared. This suggests that if you have money then only you have Human Rights otherwise approach to Maneka Gandhi for safeguarding your Rights (Because you are not Human Being).




A Juvenile is being taken to the Court.




The BAR and the Bench both are responsible for this. The Judiciary should take Judicial Notice and the Advocates should safe guard the Rights of their clients. In Citizens for Democracy v/s State of Assam the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly said that any deviation from the rule set in the above case shall amount Contempt of Court. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India (Article 141 of Constitution) and it shall be enforced in such manner as may be prescribed and, until provision in this behalf is so made, in such a manner as the President may by order prescribe (Article 142 of Constitution). It also directed that the Copy of this judgment be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and to all the State and Union Territory Governments through Home Secretaries for its compliance. Not only the Jail Authorities but the Lower Courts also should be tried for Contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.