{"id":23142,"date":"2026-04-29T08:13:55","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T08:13:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23142"},"modified":"2026-04-29T08:18:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T08:18:26","slug":"police-force-and-restraint-comparing-legal-frameworks-in-india-and-the-uk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/police-force-and-restraint-comparing-legal-frameworks-in-india-and-the-uk\/","title":{"rendered":"Police Force and Restraint: Comparing Legal Frameworks in India and the UK"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article provides a comparative analysis of the use of force and restraint techniques by law enforcement in India and the United Kingdom, examining the divergence in legal frameworks, tactical applications, and societal implications. In India, the transition to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023<\/strong> and the foundational principles of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1987)<\/em> define the limits of state power. In the UK, police conduct is governed by a patchwork of statutory law and the Human Rights Act 1998, emphasising the “National Decision Model” (NDM). While both jurisdictions mandate proportionality and necessity, their execution differs: India relies more heavily on traditional physical restraints, while the UK prioritises structured de-escalation and non-lethal technology. Despite these frameworks, both nations face ongoing scrutiny regarding the disproportionate use of force against marginalised communities. This paper argues for standardised global training and robust independent oversight to restore public trust and safeguard human rights.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The authority to use force is a defining characteristic of policing, yet it remains one of the most scrutinised aspects of law enforcement. In India and the United Kingdom, the evolution of force protocols reflects distinct historical trajectories and legal philosophies. While the UK has moved toward a human-rights-centric, “policing by consent” model, India is currently navigating a monumental legislative shift from colonial-era statutes to the new BNSS framework.<\/p>\n

    This study explores how these two nations balance the imperative of public safety with the protection of individual liberties. By examining the legal thresholds for intervention and the technical methods of restraint, this article highlights the necessity of evolving beyond mere “compliance” toward a culture of ethical accountability.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. International Standards: The UN Framework<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Underpinning both domestic systems is the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials<\/strong>. Article 3 stipulates that force may only be used when “strictly necessary” and to the extent required by duty. Furthermore, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990)<\/strong> mandate that:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Firearms must be used only to reduce the risk of unnecessary injury.<\/li>\n
      • Warning protocols must be established before the discharge of weapons.<\/li>\n
      • Comprehensive reporting systems must exist to document every instance of force.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
          \n
        1. Comparative Literature and Oversight Models<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The Indian Context: Legislative Transition<\/strong><\/p>\n

          India\u2019s legal landscape is currently defined by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023<\/strong>, which replaces the CrPC. While BNSS aims to modernise procedures, challenges remain. Research indicates that custodial violence often persists due to systemic issues like political interference and a lack of standardised national training (Kumar, 2021). Although the Supreme Court has provided rigorous safeguards, reports from organisations like Amnesty International suggest a gap between judicial decree and ground-level enforcement, particularly regarding marginalised castes and creeds.<\/p>\n

          The UK Context: Structured Accountability<\/strong><\/p>\n

          In the UK, custody and force are governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984<\/strong> (England & Wales) and similar acts in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The UK model is characterised by independent oversight bodies:<\/p>\n

            \n
          • IOPC<\/strong> (Independent Office for Police Conduct) \u2013 England & Wales.<\/li>\n
          • PIRC<\/strong> (Police Investigations and Review Commissioner) \u2013 Scotland.<\/li>\n
          • PONI<\/strong> (Police Ombudsman Northern Ireland) \u2013 Northern Ireland.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            While these structures provide higher levels of transparency, reports such as the Lammy Review (2017)<\/strong> highlight that Black and minority ethnic groups remain disproportionately subject to use-of-force incidents, indicating that structural bias remains a global challenge.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Legal Frameworks for the Use of Force<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
              \n

              Feature<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              India (BNSS 2023 \/ BNS)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              United Kingdom (PACE \/ Human Rights Act)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

              \n

              Primary Authority<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              Section 43 BNSS: State Police Manuals<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967; NDM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

              \n

              Threshold<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              “Appropriate force” to prevent escape\/resistance<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              “Reasonable and Proportionate”<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

              \n

              Lethal Force<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              Only for capital offenses or life-sentence crimes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              Absolute necessity (Right to Life\/Art). 2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

              \n

              Accountability<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

              		\n

              Independent Ombudsmen (IOPC\/PONI)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

              Section 43(3) of the BNSS<\/strong> introduces specific provisions for handcuffing, targeting repeat offenders and those involved in organised crime or terrorism. Conversely, the UK’s National Decision Model (NDM)<\/strong> requires officers to constantly reassess risk, ensuring that any restraint is the “least restrictive option” available.<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Tactical Restraint Techniques: A Technical Comparison<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Handcuffs and Physical Restraint<\/strong><\/p>\n

                In India, the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration<\/em> famously labelled routine handcuffing as an “affront to human dignity”. However, BNSS 2023 has now codified specific categories where handcuffs are permissible. A significant concern in Indian policing is the continued use of outdated methods, such as ropes, which increase the risk of injury.<\/p>\n

                In the UK, the focus is on preventing positional asphyxia.<\/b>\u00a0Officers are trained to avoid leaving suspects in a prone (face-down) position, as this has historically led to custody deaths (IPCC, 2017).<\/p>\n

                Non-Lethal Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n

                The UK utilises a tiered approach to force, integrating:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Tasers (Conducted Energy Devices)<\/strong><\/li>\n
                • Incapacitant Sprays (Pava\/CS)<\/strong><\/li>\n
                • Spit Hoods<\/strong> (highly regulated)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Indian policing is gradually shifting toward these tools but currently relies more heavily on physical subduing techniques (wrist locks and arm bars) and crowd-control measures like water cannons and tear gas.<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Case Analysis: Failures in the Use of Force<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    To understand the consequences of procedural failure, we must examine recent high-profile incidents:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • United Kingdom:<\/strong> The deaths of Ian Tomlinson (2009)<\/strong> and Dalian Atkinson (2016)<\/strong> led to significant legal repercussions. PC Benjamin Monk\u2019s manslaughter conviction for the death of Atkinson marked a rare instance of criminal accountability for the disproportionate use of a Taser.<\/li>\n
                    • India:<\/strong> Recent reports of custodial deaths, such as Aman Gautam (Lucknow, 2024)<\/strong> and Ashraf Ali (Assam, 2024)<\/strong>, have sparked public unrest. These cases highlight the friction between police claims of “natural death” (e.g., heart attack) and family allegations of physical assault, emphasising the need for mandatory videography under BNSS.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                        \n
                      1. Recommendations and Conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        The comparative study reveals that while the UK offers a more robust framework for independent oversight<\/strong>, India\u2019s new BNSS 2023 provides a critical opportunity for reform if implemented with transparency.<\/p>\n

                        Key Recommendations:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. Standardised Training:<\/strong> India should adopt a model similar to the UK\u2019s Personal Safety Manual<\/strong> to standardise restraint techniques across all states.<\/li>\n
                        2. Independent Oversight:<\/strong> The NHRC and SHRCs require more binding legal authority to mirror the effectiveness of the UK’s IOPC.<\/li>\n
                        3. Technological Integration:<\/strong> Expanding the use of body-worn cameras and non-lethal restraints can reduce the reliance on high-risk physical force.<\/li>\n
                        4. Health-Based Protocols:<\/strong> Both nations must prioritise medical assessments during restraint to eliminate deaths from positional asphyxia or sudden cardiac arrest.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          By harmonising legal safeguards with modern tactical training, law enforcement agencies can ensure that “the use of force” remains a measure of last resort, protecting both the officer and the citizen.<\/p>\n

                          References<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          • College of Policing (UK). Personal Safety Manual.<\/em><\/li>\n
                          • Supreme Court of India. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1987).<\/em><\/li>\n
                          • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.<\/em><\/li>\n
                          • Amnesty International Report on Custodial Abuses (2019).<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n

                            <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                            This article provides a comparative analysis of the use of force and restraint techniques by law enforcement in India and the United Kingdom, examining the divergence in legal frameworks, tactical applications, and societal implications. In India, the transition to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 and the foundational principles of D.K. Basu v. State<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":23141,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-23142","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-human-rights"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/use-of-force.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23142"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23184,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23142\/revisions\/23184"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}