Handcuffing is the act of restraining a person’s wrists using metal or plastic cuffs, typically to prevent escape or violence during arrest, custody, or transport. In India, handcuffing is legally permitted only under exceptional circumstances—such as when an accused has a history of fleeing custody or poses a credible threat to public safety.
For example, a person arrested for armed robbery who previously escaped from jail may be handcuffed during transit; similarly, a prisoner being escorted to court amid intelligence of a planned attack may be restrained for security reasons. However, routine or indiscriminate handcuffing—especially of non-violent or first-time offenders—is unconstitutional and violates the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legal Framework:
The use of handcuffs in India is regulated by constitutional provisions, statutory law, and judicial interpretation to ensure alignment with human dignity and due process.
Article 21 of the Constitution:
Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Any form of physical restraint, including handcuffing, must be just, fair, and reasonable, and cannot be applied arbitrarily or as a routine measure.
Statutory Provision – Section 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
Under Section 43(3) BNSS, a police officer may use handcuffs during arrest only if the nature and gravity of the offence justify such restraint. It applies to habitual or repeat offenders, those who have previously escaped from custody, or those accused of serious crimes such as:
- Organised crime, terrorism, or drug trafficking
- Illegal possession of arms or ammunition
- Murder, rape, or acid attacks
- Counterfeiting of currency
- Human trafficking and sexual offences against children
- Offences against the State (endangering sovereignty, unity, or integrity)
- Major economic offences
The BNSS provision must be read harmoniously with Supreme Court rulings; it does not override judicial safeguards. Its constitutionality depends on implementation—any misuse would make the act illegal and contemptuous under Article 21.
Judicial Safeguards:
Indian courts have consistently held that handcuffing is an exception, not a norm. The following landmark judgments set the boundaries for lawful restraint:
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) – Condemned indiscriminate use of handcuffs as inhuman and degrading, violating Article 21.
- Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) – Declared handcuffing prima facie inhumane and illegal unless exceptional reasons are recorded and judicial approval obtained.
- Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995) – Extended the ban on routine handcuffing to include undertrial prisoners; mandated written justification by a senior officer.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Directed that handcuffing must be an exceptional measure requiring prior judicial sanction in grave cases.
When Handcuffs May Be Used:
Handcuffs may be applied only in specific, justified, and documented circumstances:
- Risk of Escape: Where the accused has previously escaped or shows a likelihood of fleeing custody.
- Violent Behaviour: When the person poses a threat to themselves or others.
- Judicial Authorization: Prior approval from a Magistrate is preferred, especially for non-violent or first-time offenders.
Even in these cases, use must be proportionate. The police must record reasons in writing and be prepared to justify them before a court.
Documentation Requirements:
To lawfully justify handcuffing, police authorities must maintain contemporaneous records in both the Case Diary (Section 192 BNSS, 2023) and Arrest Memo/Panchnama (Section 36 (b) BNSS, 2023). These must include:
- Specific grounds for restraint (e.g., “the accused attempted escape during prior arrest on [date]”).
- Evidence that lesser measures were insufficient.
- Approval details—rank and designation of the authorizing officer (SP or above) or order of the Magistrate.
- Exact time, place, and duration of handcuffing.
- Intimation to the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, per K. Basu and Prem Shankar Shukla guidelines.
Any vague or generic documentation renders the handcuffing illegal and contemptuous under constitutional and procedural law.
Accountability for Misuse:
Police officers who handcuff without proper justification or judicial compliance face serious legal and administrative consequences:
- Contempt of Court: Violation of judicial guidelines attracts punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (up to six months’ imprisonment or fine).
- Departmental Action: Officers may face disciplinary action like suspension etc. for breaching service rules.
- Personal Liability: Courts may award compensation to victims for violation of dignity under Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and D.K. Basu.
- Criminal Prosecution: Offending officers may be charged under:
- Section 258 BNS – Unlawful confinement.
- Section 126(2) BNS – Wrongful restraint.
- Section 127 BNS – Wrongful confinement.
- Adverse Judicial Remarks: Courts may record adverse comments impacting career of the officer.
Unauthorized handcuffing thus constitutes a direct assault on constitutional dignity, exposing the officer to multiple layers of accountability.
Conclusion:
Handcuffing in India is not a routine administrative tool but an exceptional coercive measure. It is permissible only when there is clear, individualized justification—such as escape risk or violent conduct—supported by written documentation and prior judicial or senior police approval.
Rooted in Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and fairness, and guided by the BNSS, 2023 alongside landmark rulings (Prem Shankar Shukla, D.K. Basu), the law demands balance between public safety and human rights. Any deviation is not merely a procedural irregularity—it is a constitutional violation, inviting contempt, disciplinary action, and compensation.
In essence, handcuffs must remain a last resort, not a symbol of control.
