Handcuffing of Accused: The Interplay of BNSS and Article 21 by Vidhi Solanki
Arrest with Dignity: Arrest does not automate handcuffs on the wrist.
The practice of handcuffing an accused during arrest, detention, or transportation has always been a contentious issue in India. The Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), the legal framework governing criminal procedures, plays a crucial role in this context. However, this practice must also be examined in light of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The article further explores the interplay between the BNSS and Article 21, highlighting relevant case laws and the importance of maintaining a balance between law and enforcement and human rights.
Understanding Handcuffing and its Legal Provisions
Handcuffing, as a means of restraining an accused, is often deemed necessary for ensuring security and preventing illegal escape. However, it can also be seen as a violation of personal liberty and dignity of the accused. The BNSS provides guidelines and regulations for the procedure for arrest and the use of handcuffs. These provisions aim to standardize practices while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the accused. Section 43 of the BNSS allows a police officer to use handcuffs while making an arrest or producing such a person in court, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence.
Handcuffs, corresponding to the suggested law, can be exercised on a person who is a chronic or repeat offender, or who absconded from custody, or who has committed offences of systematized crime, terrorist acts, drug-related crime, illegitimate possession of arms and security, murder, rape, acid assault, counterfeiting of coins and currency notes, mortal trafficking, sexual offence against children, or offence against the state.
The BNSS outlines specific circumstances under which handcuffing is permissible. It emphasizes that handcuffing should not be a routine procedure and should only be employed in special cases when such absolutely necessary conditions arise.
According to the BNSS, handcuffing can be justified in the following situations:
- Escape Risk: If there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused may escape.
- Violent Behavior: If the accused exhibits violent behavior that poses a threat to themselves, others, or law enforcement officials.
- History of Escapes or Violence: If the accused has a history of escaping or exhibiting violent behavior. The BNSS mandates that law enforcement officers must provide a detailed justification for handcuffing in their arrest reports. This requirement ensures accountability and transparency, preventing the arbitrary use of handcuffs.
Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 of Indian Constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This article has been extensively interpreted to envelop a wide array of rights, including rights to privacy and shelter. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is sacrosanct. It held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, arbitrary, and repugnant to Article 21, ruling that in the extreme circumstance that a prisoner needs to be handcuffed, the escorting authority must record reasons for doing so. Any action that infringes upon this right must be scrutinized carefully. Handcuffing, being a potential violation of personal liberty and dignity, falls under this scrutiny.
Judicial Pronouncements on Handcuffing
Several landmark judgments by the Indian Judiciary have shaped the legal landscape concerning the handcuffing of the accused. These judgments emphasize the need to balance the interests of law enforcement with the fundamental rights of individuals.
- Prem Shankar Shukla V. Delhi Administration [1980 AIR SC 1535]
In this case, the Supreme Court held that handcuffing should be the exception rather than the rule. The Court emphasized that handcuffing an accused without proper justification violates Article 21. It laid down guidelines for the use of handcuffs, stating that reasons for handcuffing must be recorded in writing and subjected to judicial scrutiny.
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1978 AIR SC 1675]
The Supreme Court, in this case, highlighted the importance of human dignity and the need to treat prisoners humanely. The Court ruled that the use of handcuffs should be limited to exceptional cases and should be based on a rational and reasonable assessment of the necessity.
- K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610]
This landmark judgment provided eleven comprehensive guidelines on the rights of arrested persons and the responsibilities of law enforcement officials. The Court reiterated that handcuffing should not be a routine practice and should only be used when absolutely necessary. It also emphasized the need for proper documentation for the same and judicial oversight.
Balancing security and human rights
The interplay between the BNSS and Article 21 necessitates a delicate balance between ensuring security and upholding human rights. While the BNSS provides a legal framework for handcuffing, it is essential that law enforcement agencies adhere to the principles enshrined in Article 21.
Measures to Ensure Compliance
To ensure that the practice of handcuffing aligns with constitutional principles, several measures can be implemented:
- Training and sensitization: Law enforcement officials should receive regular training on human rights and legal provisions related to handcuffing. Sensitization programs can help officers understand the importance of respecting the dignity and rights of the accused, and to not be motivated by inherent biases.
- Strict Adherence to Guidelines: The guidelines laid down by the BNSS and judicial pronouncements must be strictly followed. Any deviation from these guidelines should be subject to disciplinary action.
- Judicial Oversight: The courts should play an active role in scrutinizing cases of handcuffing. Regular monitoring and review of arrest reports and justifications for handcuffing can ensure accountability.
- Public Awareness: Creating awareness among the public about their rights can act as a deterrent against handcuffing. Educated citizens are more likely to challenge violations and seek redress.
Conclusion
The practice of handcuffing an accused must be viewed through the dual lenses of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While the BNSS provides the legal framework, Article 21 safeguards the fundamental rights of individuals. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in establishing guidelines and ensuring that handcuffing is used judiciously and humanely, however, not with regard to the specific provision in the BNSS. Granting law enforcement agencies the power to handcuff accused or arrested people, while not having a mechanism to check compliance with basic tenets of Part III of the Constitution, may prove to be detrimental, unless a balance is struck between BNSS and Article 21 in such a way that diligence and accountability become a mandatory offshoot of handcuffing. Striking a balance between security and human rights is essential to maintaining the integrity of the legal system and upholding the values enshrined in the Constitution.