PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (AIR 1980 SC 1535)

PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (AIR 1980 SC 1535)

The accompanying paper centers around the milestone judgment of the Supreme Court on account of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration and spreads out the choice of the Supreme Court and its investigation according to different laws and regulations and in the light of chosen cases in India. The paper will hermeneutically decipher the case from the candidate and respondent’s side and further clarify on the different laws corresponding to the case. Further the most conspicuous component of the paper includes the standard wherein it was held and battled that “binds are by all appearances barbaric, outlandish, and from the get go self-assertive without fair system and objective checking.”

The paper will accordingly investigate the connection of this guideline with different rules and law and further decipher the laws of cuffing in and all over the planet. The paper will likewise genuinely survey the investigation of this judgment and infer an interpretive end concerning the judgment of this case and afterward deduct conceivable proposals and ideas. At long last the paper will assess how the case has molded the current arrangements and how it would help in making and executing better laws later on.

BRIEF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CASE

Name of the case Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration
Citation AIR 1980 SC 1535
Year of the case 29th April, 1980
Appellant Prem Shankar Shukla
Respondent Delhi Administration
Bench/ Judges Krishnaiyer, V.R. Pathak, R.S. Reddy, O. Chinnappa
Acts involved The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; The Constitution of India, 1949
Important SectionsSection 49, 50 & 51 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 32(1) of The          Constitution of India, 1949

INTRODUCTION

The instance of Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration was one of the milestone cases chose by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the issues and temporary nature of Law of Crimes with respect to whether or not binding was unavoidably substantial. In the accompanying case the solicitor was a detainee under-preliminary and was kept at the Tihar Jail. While being prosecuted each day for different forthcoming issues and decisions he would be bound by the official in control or on the job on that specific day. However the Trial court had given its hearing that cuffs ought not be utilized and made material while taking the applicant to the court and back for the procedures, yet the accompanying officials proceeded with something similar. In facilitation to the procedures and continuation of disobeyance of the sets of the Trial court, the candidate sent a message to one of the appointed authorities of the Supreme Court whining and referencing concerning this torment and embarrassment.

Additionally the applicant documented a habeas corpus appeal in the Supreme Court which was properly engaged in view of the inquiry whether or not cuffing is lawfulness legitimate? The Hon’ble Supreme Court battling on the current case surveyed and broadened that “cuffs are by all appearances brutal, outlandish, and from the beginning self-assertive without fair strategy and objective observing.” The court additionally expressed that it comprehends the motivation behind binds to not permit detainees to flee, however reestablished that it isn’t necessarily ordered and required fundamental at every one of the occasions.

The believed court additionally expressed that cuffing a detainee is likewise illegal and arrangements of the Constitution of India especially Article 14, 19 and 21[2] and furthermore abuses the fundamental and quintessential respect of people ensured and revered by the laws of the country. Adding to the conflict the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “to tie a man hand-and-foot, shackle his appendages with loops of steel, mix him along in the roads and stand him for a really long time in the courts is to torment him, debase his respect, vulgarize society and foul the spirit of our protected culture.”

Also it was additionally defended that despite the fact that the orders from the Superiors express that binding is fundamental and significant it ought to possibly be approved assuming it is totally adequate and essential. Likewise on the off chance that there is no severe oversight required or there are rigid orders, binding ought not be done and ought to be kept away from in greatest conceivable limit since an individual in prison having appearances in court implies that he has not been proclaimed a violator of the law of land and thusly ought not be exposed to such treatment and embarrassment until demonstrated liable.

Additionally it is to be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court likewise expressed that the nature and capacity of the denounced ought to be perceived to acknowledge whether it is totally essential for the specialists to cuff the person in question or not. Furthermore in the event that indeed, the specialists should ensure that they perform such commitments in a proper and coordinated way and no mischief is caused to embarrassment and notoriety of the denounced. Additionally it was explained that the cuffing of detainees is cruel and dealing with them like creatures what we call as incurring the utilization of seats or irons and it is violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India[3]. Additionally assuming an individual is cuffed it restrictions their development toward any path and this is likewise violative of the Article 19 of Constitution of India.

The court in this milestone judgment has given different bearings for arrangements seeing cuffs which are as per the following:

  • Binds must be made appropriate to an individual associated with:
  1. genuine non-bailable offense
  2. individual of frantic person
  3. who is fierce in nature
  4. individual prone to end it all
  5. individual prone to get away
  • The justification behind use of cuffs should be unequivocally referenced in the Daily Diary Report and it should be acceptable in court
  • Assuming an individual is delivered under the steady gaze of the court, prior to cuffing the individual earlier consent of the court should be taken to bind the charged once more
  • At the point when an individual is created under the steady gaze of the court, the judge answerable for the equivalent should find out if the individual has been exposed to wearing cuffs and on the off chance that indeed, the explanation ought to be engaged and examined.

At last the court for this situation severe down the Punjab Police Rules which segregated between the rich and the poor for individuals who can be exposed to wearing binds and not and further held that when a detainee is bound and the official in control doesn’t have a legitimate explanation then he would be held violative of the arrangements cherished inside the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

It is currently an order that any captured individual should be delivered before a judge inside 24 hours of their capture. Starting there of time the individual will be remanded to guardianship just with a legal request. On the off chance that a legal request is gotten, the captured individual will be taken to the court from the prison and back to the prison by an accompanying party given by the police, and this accompanying party is the sole individual liable for the direct and security of the under preliminary detainees. Binding used to occur in situations when the detainee is rough and forceful. Prior binds were simply utilized for superfluous contemplations and on the comfort of the escort party either for embarrassment or for genuine discipline circumstances.

NO HANDCUFF IS GENERAL RULE

Each cop is vested with ability to bind an individual and to limitation him, yet additionally there is a limitation by the law on the police office on how and when he can utilize the ability to put restriction and cuff the individual. The cuffs ought not be utilized on comfort of the accompanying official and ought not be ordered in routine use. Each under preliminary detainee is qualified for opportunity of development as ensured under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and this right can’t be reduced and circled down. This savagery and use of cuffs ought not be utilized except if essentially significant and directed and educated by the courtroom and the equivalent was repeated in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.

WHEN HANDCUFFS CAN BE USED?

The police rules and order obviously manage and indicate that the binds can be given uniquely in perilous and certain circumstances when the detainee is frantic, or when he is probably going to break out of care and play out the evaporating act or stunt. The accompanying party should know the reality on how the equivalent can be set in motion and furthermore should know whether the detainee is risky and is to be cuffed on premise of his predecessor history. Further accompanying gatherings should contemporaneously record the purposes behind binding the detainee and should detail the reasons before an officer and acquire a legal request to perform such an activity or require as on account of Sunil Gupta v. Territory of M.P.

DUTY OF SUPERIOR OFFICER OF POLICE.

The directions given by the Supreme Court and the rules set down should be kept and ordered by the D.G. of Police to accompany a constable with the under preliminary detainee and from I.G. of Prisons to Jail superintendents dealing with such detainees when nearby the prison premises. These authorities should ensure that an individual when accompanied out of the prison or into the prison, whenever bound the purposes behind the equivalent should be clarified expressly and ought to be recorded in the pertinent journal of record in the police headquarters. Any non-execution or non-recognition should bring about disciplinary activity against the said offender. Further the escorts ought to be checked upon and every one of the senior authorities should be limited by obligation to see that every one of the rules by the Supreme Court are kept and put to rehearse.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

  • SECTION 49 – CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973: The accompanying Section plainly states on the significance of not controlling an individual pointlessly and further adds that an individual ought not be exposed to more restriction than could be possibly needed and inferred by law to do as such for the law and land and keep away from carelessness on piece of the law.  No Unnecessary Restraint “This specific area expresses that the individual captured will not be exposed to more limitation than is needed to forestall his break.”
  • SECTION 50 – PERSON ARRESTED TO BE INFORMED ON THE GROUNDS OF ARREST AND OF RIGHT TO BAIL: “Each cop or other individual capturing any individual without warrant will forthwith convey to him full specifics of the offense for which he is captured or different justification for such capture. Where a cop capture without warrant any individual other than an individual blamed for a non-bailable offense, he will illuminate the individual captured that he is qualified for be delivered on bail and that he might set up for guarantees for his sake.”
  • SECTION 51 – SEARCH OF ARRESTED PERSON:  “At whatever point an individual is captured by a cop under a warrant which doesn’t accommodate the taking of bail, or under a warrant which accommodates the taking of bail yet the individual captured can’t outfit bail, and at whatever point an individual is captured without warrant, or by a private individual under a warrant, and can’t lawfully be conceded to bail, or can’t outfit bail, the official making the capture or, when the capture is made by a private individual, the cop to whom he makes over the individual captured, may look through such individual, and spot in safe guardianship all articles, other, than needed wearing-attire, found upon him and where any article is seized from the captured individual, a receipt showing the articles taken under lock and key by the cop will be given to such individual.” “At whatever point it is important to make a female be looked, the hunt will be made by one more female with severe respect to conventionality.” The Constitution of India, 1949
  • ARTICLE 32 (1) – THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949: The Article explains that each individual has right to move the court in a proper and indicated way for the freedoms referenced in the planned part and assuming those privileges referenced under this Part have been disregarded. It is one of the major privileges recorded in the Constitution that every resident is entitled. Article 32 arrangements with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or confirms the option to move the Supreme Court by suitable procedures for the requirement of the freedoms gave in Part III of the Constitution.
  • ARTICLE 32 – REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS PART:
  1. “The option to move the Supreme Court by proper procedures for the authorization of the freedoms presented by this part is ensured;
  2. The Supreme Court will have ability to give bearings or orders or writs, remembering writs for the idea of habeas corpus, mandamus, restriction, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever might be suitable, for the implementation of any of the privileges gave by this part;
  3. Without bias to the powers gave on the Supreme Court the parliament may by law enable some other court to practice inside the neighborhood furthest reaches of its locale all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court;
  4. The privileges ensured by this Article will not be suspended besides as in any case given by this Constitution.”

REFERENCES CASE USED

In India, binding and chaining of detainees isn’t permitted however is still broadly pervasive notwithstanding such countless legal understandings which plainly build up that it is contrary to the standards of right to life ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Case laws connecting with the law and issue of cuffing in India are viewed as the most moderate on the planet. it has been noticed that in one case the Madras High court has requested two constables to pay 5,000 rupees since they cuffed a prisoner without authorization from the legal justice and with no legal request.

In the current case introduced the court had obviously held that binds are by all appearances barbaric, preposterous, and from the outset self-assertive without fair method and objective observing. The court perceived the need to get the detainee from escaping yet stated that this doesn’t mandatorily need binding. In assistance to a similar the court held and set out specific rules in regard of law for cuffing which states as adheres to:

  1. “Binds must be utilized on the off chance that an individual is engaged with a genuine non-bailable offense, and has been recently sentenced for a wrongdoing, or is of frantic person, brutal, messy or obstructive in nature or is probably going to carry out self destruction or is probably going to endeavor the demonstration of break;
  2. The explanations behind cuffing should be plainly set down and indicated in the Police Daily Diary to decrease tact.
  3. Police should initially look for legal consent for the exercise of self control during capture or on a prisoner.
  4. At first creation of a captured individual, the officer should ask whether cuffs or shackle were utilized, and assuming this is the case, request a clarification.”
  • SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION II: In the instance of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration the court held that “binds and irons bespeaks a barbarity threatening to our objective of human poise and civil rights.” In the accompanying case the court held that “cuffs and irons bespeaks a barbarity antagonistic to our objective of human respect and civil rights.”
  • CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY V. STATE OF ASSAM: Citizens for Democracy v. Territory of Assam it was clarified that “upon the prerequisite of earlier legal endorsement for the utilization of binds. If there should be an occurrence of a capture with a warrant, binds can be utilized uniquely with the earlier consent of the officer, in the event of warrantless captures, cuffs can be utilized by police fulfilling the prerequisites of law till the time the individual is created before the justice which authorization is to be looked for. The court additionally went above and beyond in standing the infringement of orders on binding by any position of cop or individual from the prison foundation to be culpable under scorn of Court Act 1971 notwithstanding the arrangements of the law.” The justification for why the utilization of cuffs ought to be decreased is on the grounds that the embarrassment of detainee ought not be featured and put out openly. Each individual either a prisoner or a normal resident is furnished with the option to live with respect and this right can’t be pillaged or diminished thusly. It is these standards which structure the essence and bedrock of majority rule social orders that even hoodlums are treated with respect in a cutting edge society. It is anyway a pitiful truth that even following 32 years of the issuance of these rules the cuffing of detainees proceeds to win and exist in this purported vote based and current culture. For this situation the court explained on the way that for utilization of cuffs on denounced by the officials in control earlier consent is fundamental as on account of capture with warrant, but for the situation in the event that a capture warrant isn’t given then the police can keep and bind the blamed until created before the judge in control or delegated.
  • MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA: Further on account of Maneka Gandhi v. Association of India it was battled that “cuffing is prime facie brutal, and in this manner outlandish, is over unforgiving and at the main blush discretionary. Missing fair methodology and objective observing to incur irons is to depend on zoological procedures offensive to Article 21. The contending cases of getting the detainee from escaping and shielding his character from barbarity must be orchestrated. To forestall the departure of an under trail is openly interest, sensible, just and can’t, without help from anyone else be chastised. In any case, to tie a man hand and foot, chain his appendages with bands of steel, mix him along in the roads and stand him for a really long time in the courts is to torment him, pollute his respect, vulgarize society and foul the spirit of our Constitutional culture.”
  • N.H. HOSKOT V. MAHARASHTRA: Additionally on account of N.H. Hoskot v. Maharashtra it was battled that “verifiable in the ability to deny the sentence of his own freedom, the court needs to guarantee that no more and something like is justified, by the sentence occurs. In the event that the detainee separates due to mental torment, mystic tension or actual curse past the licit furthest reaches of legitimate detainment the jail organization will be responsible for the abundance. Unexpectedly, assuming a compelling convict can purchase benefits and freedoms to keep away from or water down the hardship inferred in the sentence the jail foundation will be called to arrange for such debasement or weakening of court sentence by chief vindication, if inappropriate by law.”

FACTS, ISSUES, JUDGMENT AND CONCEPT HIGHLIGHTED

In the current instance of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration the Supreme Court noted and expressed the way that the act of binding and chaining the detainee by the police authorities is offensive and sketchy. For Supreme Court had additionally brought up issues and questions and set limitations on the police’s optional ability to cuff detainees. In the accompanying case the offended party, Prem Shankar Shukla had sent a message as an undertrial detainee to the Apex court, when he was being taken from prison to the officer’s court and back. A habeas corpus request was properly regulated in the official courtroom and Justice Krishna Iyer felt it to be predictable with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and held that “no detainee will be… shackled regularly or for the accommodation of the escort or caretaker.”


Further the court held that in specific cases which include limit where binds are compulsory to be utilized, the accompanying party should record and specify and contemporaneity the justification for doing such a demonstration. Further the court additionally expressed that it was discretionary and very in opposition to the standards cherished in the Constitution of India to characterize detainees into “better class” or “under class”. The decision by the courtroom for the current judgment was given in 1980, but the standards and essential rules were just pronounced and added in 1988. The rules featured the way that the cuffs can’t be utilized on the comfort of the overseers and that binding can be abstained from by taking on better techniques like expanding the strength of the military or accompanies, or by driving and moving the detainees in all around secured and altered vans.

Further in consistency and agreement with these rules, each state had given an alternate police manual for its kin relying on the legal arrangements and decides overseeing that limit or outskirts. In the accompanying case Justice Krishna Iyer had persuasively expressed that “The assurance of human nobility which structures portions of our protected culture… . Gets a move on we understand that to cuffs a man is more than to humiliate him, it is to dehumanize him and consequently, to disregard his very personhood again and again utilizing the cover of hazardousness and security.” From the accompanying setting what we can deduce is that current realities for this situation are to a great extent past question and that short portrayal is legally necessary so the case and its investigation and translation can be additionally gotten to, examined and pronounced.

Adding to the conflicts brought up for this situation it is to be noticed that on account of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration it was expressed and explained that humanistically it ought to be expected that a detainee is a human and not a creature and that an under-preliminary detainee is even more so and in this way a detainee ought not be separated in view of his group or ought not be dealt with dissimilar to some other standard individual. To comprehend the judgment and investigation of the case it is critical to know current realities. In the current case a detainee sent a wire to the appointed authority of the zenith court grumbling of cuffs which he had to place on himself, he recorded a habeas corpus request in the interest of the relative multitude of different detainees verifiably challenging the embarrassment and torment of being held in irons out in the open, this way and that, when kept in guardianship in Tihar prison and were being taken to the Delhi courts as under-trail detainees. Further what happened is that in spite of the candidates grumbling and courts course to quit utilizing irons on him, it proceeded to continue and this really was the sole explanation which drove him to send a reiteration to the Supreme Court which is the most prevalent and practical sentinel on the qui vive where habeas writ and equity is in danger. Assuming there is question under the steady gaze of the courtroom in regards to cuffing of a detainee and irons, it should hurl to the side types of technique and choose and guard the complainant as per Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Likewise the case should be perused considering Article 32 which expresses that admittance to human equity is the substance of the Constitution of India and sharpened by the unique viewpoint of similar case, current realities and inquiries to law have been analyzed and deciphered. Further the courtroom and the insight in the current case fought utilizing and deciphering Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 that “nobody will be exposed to torment or to awful, barbaric or corrupting treatment or discipline.”

And further dissected Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which understands that “all people denied of their freedom will be treated with humankind and with deference for the intrinsic pride of the human individual.” further we can examine the case by investigating the expressions of Justice Felix Frankfurter which read as follows “the historical backdrop of freedom has been generally the historical backdrop of recognition of procedural safeguards.”[21] Also on account of Maneka Gandhi v. Association of India it was held that “the ambit of individual freedom secured by Article 21 is wide and far reaching and it accepts both considerable privileges to individual freedom and the strategy accommodate their hardship.”

COMPARISON OF HANDCUFFING LAWS IN INDIA TO THE WORLD

In contrast with other world nations the Indian laws managing cuffing are quire moderate and advanced. In certain nations like the United States of America and United Kingdom the laws on binding is considered to be an acknowledged practice while affecting captures and accompanying detainees. In UK there are sure legal arrangements and case laws which the oversee the utilization of binds. In Australia there is journal and a handbook known as the Police Service Handbook in the territory of New South Wales which expresses that an official is supported in cuffing detainees assuming they attempt to get away or keep them from harming themselves or making wounds others.

In America courts have advocated and approved cops binding detainees while bringing them to prison and court in like manner since by the reception of this training the suspect can’t snatch a weapon and assault the accompanying cops or specialists on true obligation. Further the European Court of Human Right deciphering the Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention which maintains the opportunity to debase medicines, expresses that binding can be requested to limit an individual during a legal capture or to keep him from getting away.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The down to earth challenges looked by the police in executing the method involved with binding and laws connecting with the equivalent ought to be considered and pondered.
  2. There is a proviso in the current approach that assuming a detainee who has no record of past wrongdoings, is of vicious nature yet the cop or escort is ignorant and makes any annoyance the fault ought not be on the accompanying official.
  3. The strategy of mentioning for binds ought to be more uniform in appropriateness and ought not be finished helping an individual’s previous characteristics or nature since these are evolving frequencies.
  4. Another proposal is that another watching group ought to be on observation when the detainee is accompanied from the prison to the court and back since the accompanying official has no means to decide and confirm the strength of the under trail detainee.
  5. At the point when the cop is distant from everyone else with the detainee it is a major danger on his wellbeing and the security of individual observers. There ought to be increment of jail vans with better alterations and safer vehicles ought to be executed by and by to guarantee wellbeing and security of both the detainee and the accompanying officials.
  6. The rules or orders referenced by the peak court express that cuffs should be utilized on detainees who are rough in nature or might get away, yet there is no test to demonstrate their inclination or conduct and surveying their temperament of independence in view of their forerunners is crooked and outlandish since conduct and nature are ascribes are frequencies which continue to adjust and changing in light of circumstances.

CONCLUSION

In the current case it was held and fought that binding is at first sight outlandish and discretionary and in view of such shows the summit court set out specific orders and rules to be observed and made commanded by everybody. Further it was said that forestalling the departure of an under-trail is in broad daylight interest, sensible and just and it can’t be reprimanded. The assertion further emphasized the way that there are different measures which can be taken on to ensure that the guardianship of a detenu is remained careful and gotten without savagery and outrage being implied in the technique took on. We ought to concur with the conflicts brought up in the forestall case that wrist bindings are pandemonium on the human body and cause embarrassment for the carrier for no great explanation of issue since the individual is an under trail detainee and still left to be sentenced. Further it is to be viewed as that chains or binds ought not be incurred for an under-individual path detainee pointlessly only for the purpose or accommodation of the escort.

Further it ought to be perceived and dissected by everybody that where there is no compelling reason to cuffs an individual and it occurs, it is vicious, fanciful dictatorial and discouraging to humble a man by manacling him. It ought to be realized that binding is to circle brutally and to rebuff humiliatingly and this can’t be depended on for guaranteeing security, and cuffs should be taken on as the last shelter. Likewise no detainee will be chained or bound regularly for the purpose or comfort of the detainee and furthermore useful impulses of safety should arrive at that troubling degree whereon elective will work with the exception of cuffs.

Additionally in outrageous circumstances when binding is the main choice, the expecting official or accompany should have contemporaneously the reasons and avocations for making such a stride and more likely than not got a legal request from the judge. Further it ought to be noticed that since an individual is accused of a grave or genuine offense doesn’t give the freedom to the escort or authorities to bind him. Additionally all detainees ought not be put on a similar balance except if there is a judicious characterization previously referenced and followed upon by the courtroom or arrangements of law like age, wellbeing, word related requirements or scholarly conditions. Additionally a cop when vested with ability to control an individual by cuffing him should not any other way totally essential and it can’t manage without something similar. Likewise on the off chance that a cop makes discretionary employments of his power, he would be liable to arrangements under utilization of pernicious power under Section 220 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 46 and 49 of the Code of Criminal strategy, 1973 which characterize the boundaries of the power conceived upon these officials by the code and law while controlling a detainee under preliminary.

At last what this Section implies and explains is that the individual or authority accountable for such situations where under-preliminary detainees are in question should guarantee that every detainee is taken care of independently and there is no normality in procedures embraced or utilized. Likewise the inquiry whether or not the detainee ought to be bound and chained ought to be assumed the premise of the conditions, general direct, practices and character. In a definitive examination of assurance, when every people case is broke down the case conditions should figure out what measure of restriction ought to be forced and how much of the equivalent. The societal position, schooling and propensity for life of people ought to be planned to secure the nobility of the individual.

Hence from the above disputes we can infer that the cuffs ought to be utilized on detainees on a prohibitive premise and it ought to be the final hotel. Further rather than examining the people past conduct and forerunners in choosing the inquiry regarding whether or not cuff is required some other medium ought to be figured out as per the arrangements of the law. Each individual ought to be consciously represented by the standards cherished in the Constitution of India by Articles 14, 19 and 21 and further every under preliminary detainee ought to be treated with respect and given the opportunity to development independent of the nature and heinousity of the wrongdoing carried out and performed, it ought to at last be reasonable and not discretionary.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Rate this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.