Read the law: Delhi court advises magistrate while quashing 'hands-up' punishment ordered by him

A Delhi Sessions Court on Friday set aside a Magistrate Court’s order directing litigants to stand with their hands up till the rising of the court as punishment for delay in furnishing bail bonds [Kuldeep & Anr v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr]. .District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of Dwarka Courts said that law does not provide such punishment and the order passed by the Magistrate was illegal. Judge Chandna said that by awarding such punishment, Judicial Magistrate Saurabh Goyal failed in his duty to conduct the proceedings legally and properly. “The act of accused persons of not furinshing bail bonds does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 228 IPC (insulting or interrupting public servant engaged in judicial proceedings) and can in no manner be taken as intentional insult or interruption to public servant in judicial proceedings,” the Court said. The Court made it clear that a punishment of standing with hands in the air is not contemplated in law.“It is also clear that Ld. Magistrate did not afford any opportunity to the accused persons to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against under the provision of Section 228 IPC. Without hearing, petitioners (accused) were asked to stand in the court till the rising of the court with their hands straight in the air. This kind of sentence is not contemplated in law,” the District and Sessions Judge said. .Further, the District and Sessions Judge advised Magistrate Goyal to “properly read and understand the legal provisions before using his discretionary powers”. .Magistrate Goyal had passed the controversial order on July 15 in a complaint case when he noted that the matter was called out twice, yet the accused persons had failed to furnish bail bonds on time. The judge said that the delay and the accused's conduct amounted to contempt of court and ordered the accused persons to stand in the court with their hands in the air. .Two of those accused, Kuldeep and Rakesh, challenged the order before the District and Sessions Court Judge. They argued that the Magistrate unlawfully passed the order and he had failed to appreciate that the powers vested in the court should not be used to violate the dignity of the parties .After considering the case, the District and Sessions Court ruled that the order was “absolutely against the substantive and procedural law”.“The judges are duty bound to safeguard basic and natural rights meant for a dignified existence of individuals. Every person appearing before the court (even if involved in crime) has the inalienable right to live with dignity and is entitled to equal respect. It is the duty of the court to ensure that no person can be detained without proper legal justification or without following due process of law,” the Court said. Therefore, it set aside the Magistrate’s order. .Advocates Kavya, Himani Verma and Aman Gahlot appeared for Kuldeep and Rakesh. Additional Public Prosecutor Ritender Singh appeared for the State. Advocates Sandeep Shokeen and Haneesh Balyan represented the original complainant in the case. .[Read Order]