State of Maharashtra directed to pay Rs. 50,000 each to lawyer and ex-serviceman for handcuffing in non-cognizable offense
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita P. Mehta, delivered a landmark judgment on April 21, 2026, in the case of Adv. Yogeshwar Madhukarrao Kawade v. State of Maharashtra. The court addressed the wrongful actions of police personnel who handcuffed a lawyer and an ex-serviceman in a non-cognizable offense, thereby violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case arose from an incident where the petitioners, a practicing lawyer and an ex-serviceman, were detained by the police and subjected to degrading treatment, including being handcuffed and paraded in public view without any legal justification. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the police officials involved and demanded compensation for the inhumane actions.
The court found that the actions of the police constituted a violation of the petitioners' right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21. It emphasized that handcuffing individuals in non-cognizable offenses is impermissible unless there is a substantial risk of violence or escape, as outlined in the Supreme Court precedents, including the cases of Prem Shankar Shukla and Sunil Batra.
In response to the petitioners' grievances, the court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay Rs. 50,000 each to the petitioners as compensation for the violation of their fundamental rights. The judgment reiterated that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy under public law jurisdiction for the infringement of fundamental rights, in addition to any civil or criminal remedies available to the victims.
The court also addressed the issue of police misconduct and highlighted the disciplinary actions taken against the errant officers. While the departmental inquiry led to the withholding of increments for the involved police officials, the court emphasized the need for the State to bear the responsibility of compensating the victims and, if necessary, recover the amount from the responsible officers.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that public authorities and police personnel must uphold the fundamental rights of individuals and adhere to established legal protocols. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding citizens' rights and ensuring accountability for the misuse of power by state actors.
Bottom Line:
Violation of Article 21 - Compensation for inhuman treatment by police personnel, including handcuffing of individuals in non-cognizable offenses, upheld; State directed to pay compensation.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 220, 330, 331 of the Indian Penal Code
