Contempt Petition  INSC 25 (8 January 1996)
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) S.C. Agrawal, J.
1996 SCC (1) 718 JT 1996 (1) 111 1996 SCALE (1)142
contempt proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the order dated June 4, 1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 239 of
1993, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The
said order dated June
4, 1993 for issuing
notices for contempt against the contemners was passed in the following
Mazdoor Chetna Sangath (hereinafter referred to as the `Sangath'), is a
registered trade union of tribals of Alirajpur Tehsil in District Jhabua of the
State of Madhya Pradesh. It started functioning in October
1985 and has been working for the upliftment of the tribals in the region. It
is opposed to the construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on river Narmada on the ground that the construction
of the Dam would be prejudicial to the interests of the tribals residing in the
catchment area of the Dam since their lands would be submerged in water and
they would be displaced. The members of the Sangath have been agitating against
the construction of the Dam. In connection with the said agitation, the members
of the Sangath were arrested by the police authorities on various dates in
connection with criminal cases registered against them and after their arrest,
the arrested persons were handcuffed while being taken from jail to the court
and from court to jail or from jail/court to civil hospital and back to
jail/court. On some occasions they were paraded while handcuffed through the
streets of Alirajpur. In the Writ Petition, mention is made of the following
incidents of handcuffing of under trial prisoners :
& -Khemla Aujanharia was handcuffed and paraded in 19.11.92 Alirajpur.
-Revji was handcuffed and paraded in Alirajpur.
-Ravi Hemadri,Amit Bhatnagar,Khajan,Tilia,Vesta, Bava Kaharia, Bamita were
handcuffed and taken from the police station to the hospital and back, and from
court to the police station and back.
-Ram Singh and Vanjara were handcuffed and taken from Alirajpur Police Station
to Sondwa Police Station.
-Ram Singh and Vanjara were handcuffed and paraded on the streets of Alirajpur.
-Rahul Ram and Ashwini Chhatre were handcuffed and paraded on the streets of Alirajpur
and were then taken taken in a truck to Sondwa.
-All the above, as well as Ruhul Ram and Ashwini Chhatre were handcuffed and
taken into the hospital. Handcuffs were removed during the examination. They
were handcuffed again and taken to court and then to the police station, then
back to court.
-Motla and Punia were taken through Alirajpur in handcuffs.
-Rahul Banerjee was handcuffed and paraded and Alirajpur.
-Rahul Banerjee produced before the Magistrate in handcuffs (Noted by JMFC, Alirajpur
in his order)." The fact about the handcuffing of these aforementioned
persons on the dates referred to above was not disputed by the respondents in
the said writ petition. Having regard to the decisions of this Court in Prem Shankar
Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 (3) SCR 855; Sunil Gupta & Ors. v. State
of Madhy Pradesh & Ors., 1990 (3) SCC 119, and Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner
of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit, 1973 (2) SCR 495, this Court was satisfied that
a prima facie case is made out for taking action for contempt of Court against
persons responsible for the aforementioned acts of handcuffing of under trial
prisoners. A direction was, therefore, given by order dated June 4, 1993 to issue notice to the contemners
to show cause why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of
response to the said notice, affidavits have been filed by the aforementioned contemners.
Before we deal with the explanation offered by the contemners, it would be
necessary to refer to the provisions of Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police
Regulations which prescribes as follows :
Hand-cuffs when Used - Hand-cuffs shall be used only if they are necessary.
following instructions regulate their use - Instructions regarding the use of
Hand-cuffs :- 1) When a prisoner has to be taken in custody from a court to a
Jail or vice- versa, the Magistrate or the Jail Officer should give a direction
in writing to the Commander of the escort as to whether the prisoner should or
should not be hand-cuffed and the escort Commander shall obey that direction,
provided that if the direction is not to hand-cuff the prisoner and at any time
thereafter the escort Commander has reason to consider it necessary to hand-
cuff the prisoner, he should do so, not withstanding such directions.
x x x x x (ii) x x x x x
escort Commander must, without fail, ask for and obtain orders in writing from
the Magistrate or the Jail Officer in regard to hand-cuffing of the prisoners
committed to his custody before taking over the prisoner from the Court or
Jail. Any neglect of these instructions must be dealt with most several.
4) x x
x x x 5) x x x x x 6) x x x x x
List of prisoners who must be hand- cuffed :-
Every person arrested by a police officer or remanded to custody by Magistrate
on a charge of having committed one of the following offences shall be
hand-cuffed unless by reason of age, sex or infirmity he can easily and
securely be kept in custody without hand-cuff :-
Offences relating to coin, sections 231 to 254 Indian Penal Code.
Murder and culpable homicide, Sections 302 to 304 Indian Penal Code.
Attempt to commit murder and culpable homicide, Sections 307 and 308 Indian
Being a Thug, Sections 311 Indian Penal Code.
Robbery, Section 311 Indian Penal Code.
Section 395 Indian Penal Code and all sections relating to dacoity.
other offence against property, if the offender has been previously convicted
of any offence against property or has been ordered to find security for good
Persons accused of an offence punishable under section 148 Indian Penal
present case, it is not disputed that provisions of sub-clause (3) Regulation
465 of the M.P. Police Regulations were not complied with inasmuch as no orders
were obtained from the concerned Magistrate/Jail Officer by the concerned
police personnel with regard to handcuffing of the prisoners while taking them
to and from court or Jail. Handcuffing of the under trial prisoners has been
sought to be justified on the ground that
accused persons attempted to resist the arrest and made attempts to run away;
large number of supporters of the Sangath had reached Alirajpur on knowing
about the arrest of accused persons and there was strong possibility that they
would have attempted to free the accused persons from the police custody. It
has also been stated that two cases involving offences under Section 307 IPC
had been registered against the accused persons.
Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra) this Court has considered the
matter of handcuffing of prisoners under trial as well as convicts in the
context of the provisions contained in Punjab Police Rule, 1934, Krishna 1yer
J., speaking for himself and Chinnappa Reddy J., has observed that
"handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is
over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary." Examining the justification
offered by the State for this mode of restraint, the learned Judge has said :
the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his
personality from barbarity have to be harmonised. To prevent the escape of an
under-trial 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 in 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." [p. 872] Insurance against escape does not
compulsorily require hand-cuffing. There are other measures whereby an escort
can keep safe custody of a detnue without the indignity and cruelty implicit in
handcuffs or other iron contraptions.
binding together either the hands or the feet or both has not merely a
preventive impact, but also a punitive hurtiunless. Manacles are mayhem on the
human person and inflict humiliation on the bearer. The Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Vol. II (1973 Edn.) at 53 states "handcuffs and fetters are
instruments of securing the hands or let of prisoners under arrest, or as a
means of punishment." The three components of irons forced on the human
person must be distinctly understood. Firstly, to hand- cuff is to hoop
harshly. Further, to handcuff is to punish humiliatingly and to vulgarise the
viewers also. Iron straps are insult and pain writ large, animalising victim
and keeper. Since there are other ways of ensuring security, it can be laid
down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on the
person of an under trial prisoner ordinarily." [pp. 872-73] "The only
circumstance which validates incapacitation by iron - an extreme measure - is
that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape, in
the given circumstances.
the prisoner being a necessity of judicial trial, the State must take steps in
this behalf. But even here, the policeman's easy assumption or any scary
apprehension or subjective satisfaction of likely escape if fetters are not
fitted on the prisoner is not enough.
heavy deprivation of personal liberty must be justifiable as reasonable
restriction in the circumstances. Ignominy, inhumanity and affliction, implicit
in chains and shackles are permissible, as not unreasonable, only if every
other less cruel means is fraught with risks or beyond availability. So it is
that to be consistent with Arts. 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge,
not the routine regimen. If a few more guards will suffice, then no handcuffs.
close watch by armed policemen will do, then no handcuffs. If alternative
measures may be provided, then no iron bondage. This is the legal norm.
874] "The conclusion flowing from these considerations is that there must
first be well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that the prisoner
is likely to jump jail or break out of custody or play the vanishing trick. The
belief in this behalf must be based on antecedents which must be recorded and
proneness to violence must be authentic.
surmises or general averments that the under-trial is a crook or desperado,
rowdy or maniac, cannot suffice. In short, save in rare cases of concrete proof
readily available of the dangerousness of the prisoner in transit- the onus of
proof of which is on him who puts the person under irons - the police escort
will be committing personal assault or mayhem if he handcuffs or fetters his
charge." [p. 874] "Merely because the offence is serious, the
inference of escape oroneness or desperate character does not follow.
other conditions mentioned in the Police Manual are totally incongruous with
what we have stated above and must fall as unlawful. Tangible testimony,
documentary or there, or desperate behavior, geared to making good his escape,
alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and fettering, and even this may
be avoided by increasing the strength of the escorts or taking the prisoners in
well protected vans." [p. 875] "The nature of the accusation is not
the criterion. The clear and present danger of escape breaking out of the
police control is the determinant. And for this there must be clear material,
not glib assumption, record of reasons and judicial oversight and summary
hearing and direction by the court where the victim is produced." [p. 876]
In Sunil Gupta & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra) this Court, while dealing with
Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations, has observed :
Court on several occasions has made weighty pronouncements decrying and
severely condemning the conduct of the escort police in handcuffing the
prisoners without any justification. In spite of it, it, is very unfortunate that
the courts have to prepare and re- repeat its disapproval of unjustifiable
handcuffing." [p. 128] "One should not lose sight of the fact that
when a person is remanded by a judicial order by a competent court, that person
comes within the judicial custody of the court. Therefore, the taking of a
person from a prison to the court or back from court to the prison by the
escort party is only under the judicial orders of the court. Therefore, even if
extreme circumstances necessitate the escort party to bind the prisoners in
fetters, the escort party should record the reasons for doing so in writing and
intimate the court so that the court considering the circumstances either
approve or disapprove the action of the escort party and issue necessary
129] That was case where social activists demanding the appointment of regular
teachers in schools located in tribal hamlets had been arrested and were taken
to the Court by handcuffing them and this Court expressed its strong
disapproval of the said action.
position in law with regard to handcuffing of prisoners - convicted or undertrial
- has been reiterated in the recent decision in Citizen For Democracy v. State
if Assam & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 743, wherein it has been hald :
declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall
not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or undertrial - while lodged in a jail
anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to
another or from jail to court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on
their own, shall have no authority to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a
jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail
to court and back.
the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a
strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out
of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate
concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before
the said Magistrate. Save in rare cases of concrete proof regarding proneness
of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to escape, he being so
dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding
escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the
the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate
and remand - judicial or non- judicial - is given by the Magistrate the person
concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are
obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.
the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained from a
Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police
has also a * from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so
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 by us in para
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 as already indicated by us.
direct all ranks of police and the prison authorities to meticulously obey the
above-mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us
by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall
be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal
consequences under law." [p. 751] The justification for handcuffing that
has been offered about the under trial prisoners trying to escape from custody
does not stand scrutiny because the accused were social activists who were
agitating for the protection of the rights of the tribals and at the time of
arguments on the bail application of the accused persons, bail was not opposed
by the prosecution on the ground of seriousness of the charges against them or
the likelihood of their absconding. It is not disputed that no orders were
obtained from the concerned Magistrate with regard to handcuffing of the
prisoners before taking them to court from jail and to the jail from the court.
The handcuffing of the members of the Sangath who were under trial prisoners,
was, therefore, not justified and was in clear disregard of the law laid down
by this Court in the decisions referred to above. The question that arise is
whether the said actions of the contemners in handcuffing the prisoners
constitute contempt of this Court. We will first take up the case of the five
police personnel who are contemners Nos. 1 to 5.
No. 1, M.P. Dwivedi, was Superintendent of Police of District Jhabwa at the
relevant time. He was not personally present in Alirajpur when the incidents of
handcuffing had taken place. He is, therefore, not directly involved in the
said incidents. In the order dated June 4, 1993, it is stated that notice was
being issued to him for the reason that, being over all incharge of the police
administration in the district, he was responsible to ensure strict compliance
with the directions given by this Court in the matter of handcuffing of under
trial prisoners by police personnel under his charge and instead of taking
action against the police personnel responsible for such violation, he appears
to have approved the said action. In the affidavit filed by the contemner in
response to the said notice, he has stated that there was no complaint about
handcuffing from any member of the public or from the affected persons and he
had not come across even any press report about handcuffing and that only on
February 26, 1993 Dharmendra Choudhary, SDO (Police)had informed him about the handcuffings
and thereafter he visited Sondwa Police Station on March 5, 1993 and inquired
into the incidents and the police case diaries in respect of the incidents of handcuffings
which showed that the accused persons had attempted to resist the arrest and
made attempts to run away and a large number of supporters of the Sangath had
reached Alirajpur on knowing the arrest of the accused persons and there was a
strong possibility that they would have attempted to free the accused persons
from the police custody. The contemner has further stated that he called a
meeting of all gazetted police officers and station officers on March 23, 1993
and gave strict directions to the effect that handcuffing was to be resorted to
only in rare and exceptional situations and they should try to get written
orders from concerned Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of M.P.
Police Regulations. He has further stated that he was not aware of the decision
of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra), but even
without knowledge of the said decision and on the basis of M.P. Police
Regulations, he had indicated to his subordinate officers that handcuffing was
not to be resorted to except in Paragraph 465 of M.P. Police Regulations under
title `the list of prisoners who must be handcuffed'.
No. 3, S.S. Ansari, was posted as Town Inspector at Police Station Alirajpur at
the relevant time.
was admittedly present at the time the incidents of hand-cuffing took place
during the period from February
2, 1993 to February 25, 1993. In his affidavit filed in response
to the notice, the contemner has stated that he himself did not participate in
the said incidents and that it was the Investigating Officer who was
responsible for the handcuffing of the accused persons. He has sought to
justify the handcuffing on the basis of the entries in the police case diary by
the Investigating Officer that the accused persons were likely to escape.
No. 4, S.D. Bhargava, was posted as Sub- Inspector of Police/S.O. at Police
Station Sondwa, at the relevant time. In his affidavit filed in response to the
notice, the contemner has not disputed the incidents of handcuffing during the
period from February 2,
1993 to February 25, 1993. He has sought to justify the said
action on the basis of Paragraph 465 of M.P. Police Regulations. He has also
stated that the said incidents of handcuffings took place due to error of
judgment and due to ignorance of law laid by this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v.
Delhi Administration (supra).
No. 5, Natvar Singh, was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Sondwa at
the relevant time. He has been placed under suspensions in connection with the
incidents of handcuffings which took place on February 8, 1993. In his affidavit filed in response to the notice, the contemner
has stated that he had no knowledge of law laid down by this Court with regard
to use of handcuffs prior to the institution of these proceedings in this Court
and no departmental circular had been issued containing the necessary
directions in that regard.
laid down by this Court "Contempt of court is disobedience to the court,
by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. If
signifies a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's order; it also
signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the
administration of law into disrepute.
Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit, (supra) at
p. 499]. Willful disregard or disobedience of the court's order presupposes and
awareness of the order that has been disregarded or disobeyed. In view of the
affidavits filed by contemners Nos. 1 to 5 stating that they were not aware of
law laid down by this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration
(supra) and Sunil Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra), we
refrain from taking action to punish them for contempt of this Court.
handcuffing of the under trial prisoners cannot, however, be justified even
under the provisions of Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police Regulations inasmuch
as the said regulation requires an express authorization from the
Magistrate/Jail Officer for the purpose of taking him to court from jail and
from jail to court. Admittedly, no such authorisation was obtained in this
case. As regards the role and responsibility of contemners Nos. 1 and 5 in
these actions involving handcuffing of under trial prisoners, it may be stated
that contemners Nos. 3 to 5 were directly involved in the said incidents of
handcuffing because the handcuffing was done under their directions or in their
presence. Contenmers Nos. 1 and 2, even though not directly involved in the
said incidents since they were not present, must be held responsible for having
not taken adequate steps to prevent such actions and even after the said
actions came to their knowledge, they condoned the same by not taking stern
action against persons found responsible for this illegality. We, therefore,
record out disapproval of the conduct of all the five contemners Nos. 1 to 5 in
this regard and direct that a note regarding the disapproval of their conduct
by this Court be placed in the personal file of all of them.
also constrained to say that though nearly 15 years have elapsed since this
Court gave its decision in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra) no steps have been taken
by the concerned authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh to amend the M.P.
Police Regulations so as to bring them in accord with the law laid down by this
Court in that case.
has any circular been issued laying down the guidelines in the matter of
handcuffing of prisoners in the light of the decision of this Court in Prem Shankar
Chief Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh is, therefore, directed to
ensure that suitable steps are taken to amend the M.P. Police Regulations in
the light of the law laid down by this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra) and
proper guidelines are issued for the guidance of the police personnel in this
regard. The Law Department and the Police Department of the Government of
Madhya Pradesh shall take steps to ensure that the law laid down by this Court
in the matter of protection of human rights of citizens as against actions by
the police is brought to the notice of all Superintendents of Police in the
Districts soon after the decision is given, by issuing necessary circulars in
that regard and the responsibility is placed on the Superintendent of Police to
ensure compliance with the said circulars by the subordinate police personnel
under his charge.
No. 6, Vinod Kumar, was posted as SDM at Alirajpur at the relevant time. It has
been alleged on behalf of the petitioners in the Writ Petition that the
incident of handcuffing on February 18, 1993
took place in his presence. In his affidavit filed in response to the notice,
the contemner has, however, stated that he was on earned leave from December 31, 1992 to February 17, 1993 and on November 18, 1992
he was on medical leave. In view of the said statement, no responsibility attacher
to the contemner in respect of the incident of handcuffing on November 18, 1992 and notice issued against him is
No. 7, B.K. Nigam, was posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur, at
the relevant time. In the order dated June 4, 1993 it is stated that the under trial
prisoners were produced before him but he did take any action against
handcuffing of those prisoners by the police.
said order, reference has also been made to the rejoinder affidavit of Dr. Amita
Baviskar filed on June 1, 1993 wherein it is stated that the contemner was
apprised about the decisions of this Court and he is reported to have stated
that "......the Supreme Court decision has no application threaten that the
police has the right to transport the accused as they want, with or without
handcuffs". The contemner has filed two affidavits in responses to the
notice. In the affidavit dated July 31, 1993, he has denied having made the
statement as alleged by Dr. Amita Baviskar in her affidavit dated June 1, 1993
regarding handcuffing of the under trial prisoners and has said that on
February 8, 1993, two complaints were made before him by accused Ravi and Rahul
Narsimha Ram about the handcuffing of prisoners and that on these applications
he had passed orders on the same day for Incharge of Police Station Alirajpur
to submit explanation and that besides these two complaints, no complaint
whatsoever, orally or in writing, was made to him regarding handcuffing of the
under trial prisoners. In support of his aforesaid submission, the contemner
has also filed the affidavits of Shri Betulla Khan and Shri Girdhari Lal Vini,
Advocates who were representing the accused persons before him in those cases
and who had appeared in his court on February 8, 1993. In these affidavits the deponents
have stated that no decision of this Court was cited before the contemner on
that date regarding handcuffing of under trial prisoners and that the contemner
did not say that the decision of this Court has no application and the police
has the right to transport the accused as they want, with or without handcuffs.
In the second affidavit dated September 18, 1993 the contemner has tendered his
unconditional and unqualified apology for the lapse on his part that when under
trial prisoners in Crime No. 11/93, 12/93, 17/93 of Police Station Sondwa, who
were agitating against the construction of Sardar Sarovar, were produced in
handcuffs in his Court, immediate action was not taken by him for the removal
of their handcuffs and against the escort party for bringing them in Court or
taking them away from Court in handcuffs. The contemner has submitted that he
is a young judicial officer and that the lapse was not intentional.
have carefully considered the two affidavits of the contemner as well as the
affidavits of Shri Betulla Khan and Shri Girdhari Lal Vani, Advocates. We would
assume that of February 8, 1993 the contemner did not make the statement about
the judgments of this Court having no application there and the police having
the right to transport the accused as they want, with or without handcuffs. But
the contemner, being a judicial officer, is expected to be aware of law laid
down by this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra) and
Sunil Gupta & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra). Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi
Administration (supra) was decided in 1980, nearly 13 years earlier. In his
affidavits also he does not say that he was not aware of the said decisions.
Apart from that, there were provisions in Regulation 465 of the M.P. Police
Regulations prescribing the conditions in which under trial prisoners could be
handcuffed and they contain the requirement regarding authorisation for the
same by the Magistrate. It appears that the contemner was completely
insensitive about the serious violations of the human rights of the under trial
prisoners in the matter of their handcuffing in as much as when the prisoners
were produced before him in Court in handcuffs, he did not think it necessary
to take any action for the removal of handcuffs or against the escort party for
bringing them to the Court in Handcuffs and taking them away in handcuffs
without his authorisation. This is a serious lepse on the part of the contemner
in the discharge of his duties as a judicial officer who is expected to ensure
that the basic human rights of the citizens are not violated. Keeping in view
that the contemner is a young judicial officer, we refrain from imposing
punishment on him. We, however, record our strong disapproval of his conduct
and direct that a note of this disapproval by this Court shall be kept in the
personal file of the contemner. We also feel that judicial officers should be
made aware from time to time of the law laid down by this Court and the High
Court, more especially in connection with protection of basic human rights of
the people and, for that purpose, short refresher courses may be conducted at
regular intervals so that judicial officers are made aware about the
developments in the law in the field.
result, the contempt notices issued against the contemners are discharged
subject to the directions regarding disapproval of the conduct of contemners
Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and directions regarding placing the note of the said
disapproval in the personal files of all of them. The contempt proceedings will
stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar, Madhya Pradesh