Handcuffing Law in India

0 0 RABI KR. PANDIT Saturday, January 24, 2026 Edit this post

Handcuffing Law in India

In the 2023 case of Sabah Al Zarid v. The State of Assam and others, the Gauhati High Court ordered the police to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to an advocate for handcuffing him without 'just cause'.

This decision underscores the judiciary's ongoing commitment to uphold human dignity and personal liberty, reinforcing the principles laid out in earlier rulings, such as the Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration (1980) judgment, which emphasized the importance of treating individuals with dignity and set clear restrictions on the use of handcuffs.

The Gauhati High Court's order in the Sabah Al Zarid case serves as a reminder of the legal protections against arbitrary and unjustified use of restraints on individuals, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures to safeguard personal freedoms and human rights.

In India, the legal framework and guidelines regarding the use of handcuffs are guided by the principles of necessity, minimum force, and human dignity. The law on handcuffing is not governed by a specific statute but is rather based on various judgments of the Supreme Court of India, which has laid down guidelines to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of handcuffs.

Meaning of Handcuffing

Handcuffing means the act of restraining a person’s hands using metal or similar restraints so that their movement is restricted. It is usually done by police when a person is arrested or taken into custody. The main purpose of handcuffing is to prevent the person from escaping, harming others, or causing trouble while in custody.

In legal terms, handcuffing is considered a physical restraint imposed by the police on an accused or arrested person. However, under Indian constitutional law, handcuffing is not a routine or automatic practice. The law recognizes that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and therefore unnecessary handcuffing amounts to humiliation and violation of human dignity.

The Supreme Court of India has clearly held that handcuffing directly affects a person’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also related to the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to freedom of movement (Article 19). Because of this, handcuffing is allowed only in exceptional circumstances where it is absolutely necessary, such as when there is a real risk of escape or danger to public safety.

In simple words, handcuffing means physically tying or locking the hands of a person in custody, but Indian law treats it as a serious invasion of personal liberty and permits it only with strong justification and judicial approval.

General Rule on Handcuffing

In India, the general rule is that handcuffing is not allowed as a routine practice. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that handcuffing is the exception, not the rule. An arrested or undertrial person cannot be handcuffed automatically merely because they are in police custody. Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and unnecessary handcuffing amounts to public humiliation and violation of human dignity.

Handcuffing is permitted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when:

The accused is violent or dangerous
There is a real possibility of escape
The accused has a history of breaking custody
There is a threat to public safety or police personnel

Even in such situations, the police must:

Record clear and specific reasons in writing
Produce the accused before a Magistrate
Seek judicial approval for handcuffing

Mechanical or habitual handcuffing is strictly prohibited. The Supreme Court has emphasized that no person should be handcuffed merely for the convenience of the police.

Although there is no specific section in the CrPC that directly authorizes routine handcuffing, the law on handcuffing is derived from constitutional provisions and judicial guidelines.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Handcuffing without necessity violates Article 21. The Supreme Court has held that personal liberty includes the right to live with dignity, even while in custody.

Article 14 – Right to Equality
Arbitrary handcuffing amounts to unequal and unreasonable treatment, violating Article 14.

Article 19 – Freedom of Movement (Limited)
Unjustified restraints restrict freedom of movement and must satisfy reasonableness.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Section 46 CrPC allows reasonable force during arrest but does not authorize routine handcuffing
Section 49 CrPC states that the arrested person shall not be subjected to more restraint than necessary

These provisions clearly indicate that handcuffing must be minimal and justified.

The general rule in India is no handcuffing unless absolutely necessary. Handcuffing without justification violates constitutional rights and is illegal. The law strongly protects human dignity, personal liberty, and the presumption of innocence, making handcuffing a last resort rather than a standard police practice.

Earlier said rules on the use of handcuffs

The Supreme Court has historically expressed its disapproval of the practice of handcuffing convicts and under-trial prisoners, emphasizing the need for law enforcement and correctional practices to align with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

In a landmark ruling from 1980, the Court scrutinized various legal provisions and regulations related to the use of handcuffs, including the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955; the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume III, Rules 26:22(i)(a) to (f), 26.21A, 27.12); Standing Order 44; and instructions on handcuffs from November 1977 and orders from April 1979.

The Court underscored that these laws and regulations must comply with Articles 14 (Equality before the Law), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution, thereby highlighting the necessity for a humane and constitutional approach to the treatment of prisoners and underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding human rights and dignity against arbitrary and punitive state actions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that handcuffing is fundamentally inhumane, making it unreasonable, excessively harsh, and initially arbitrary. This stance is grounded in the principle that without a fair procedure and objective oversight, the use of restraints is akin to primitive, zoological tactics that are offensive to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

Despite this strong position against arbitrary handcuffing, the Prison Act of 1894 provides a legal framework for the use of handcuffs under specific circumstances. According to this Act, "The Superintendent may examine any person touching any such offence, and determine thereupon, and punish such offence by- imposition of handcuffs of such pattern and weight, in such manner and for such period, as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government."

This provision indicates that the use of handcuffs is not entirely prohibited, but it is regulated and subject to the discretion of prison superintendents within the bounds of rules established by the State Government. This creates a legal pathway for the use of handcuffs, but it also necessitates a balance with the broader constitutional protections against inhumane treatment.

Handcuffing under CrPC & BNSS

Handcuffing in India is not governed by a single express section saying “handcuffs may be used.” Instead, the law flows from general arrest and restraint provisions, read with constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court guidelines. This position continues under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC.

1. Handcuffing under the CrPC, 1973

(a) Section 46 – Arrest how made

Section 46 allows the police to use reasonable force to effect an arrest if the person resists or attempts to evade arrest.
Important:

The section does not authorize routine handcuffing.
“Reasonable force” does not automatically include handcuffs.

(b) Section 49 – No unnecessary restraint

Section 49 clearly states that:

“The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

This is the key statutory limitation on handcuffing under CrPC.

Meaning in practice:

Handcuffing is not the norm
It is allowed only when necessary to prevent escape or danger
Unnecessary handcuffing is illegal

In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) and Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995), the Supreme Court held that:

Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman
Police must record reasons
Judicial approval is required
Routine handcuffing violates Article 21

Thus, under CrPC, Sections 46 and 49 read with Article 21 strictly restrict handcuffing.

2. Handcuffing under the BNSS, 2023

The BNSS, 2023 replaces the CrPC but retains the same legal philosophy regarding arrest and restraint.

(a) Section 43 BNSS – Arrest how made

(This corresponds to Section 46 CrPC)

Allows use of necessary and reasonable force during arrest
Does not grant automatic power to handcuff

(b) Section 45 BNSS – Restraint of person arrested

(Corresponds to Section 49 CrPC)

States that an arrested person shall not be subjected to more restraint than necessary
Reinforces the principle of minimum restraint

Position under BNSS

BNSS does not introduce any new power permitting routine handcuffing
Supreme Court guidelines on handcuffing continue to apply
Human dignity and personal liberty remain central

3. Combined Legal Position (CrPC + BNSS)

Under both CrPC and BNSS:

• Handcuffing is not a routine police power
• It is allowed only in exceptional circumstances
• Reasons must be specific, recorded, and justifiable
• Magistrate’s scrutiny is mandatory
• Violation attracts constitutional consequences

4. When Handcuffing May Be Legally Allowed

Under CrPC & BNSS (read with case law), handcuffing may be permitted only if:

Accused is violent or dangerous
There is a clear risk of escape
Accused is a habitual offender
Threat to public or police safety

Even then: Judicial approval is compulsory

Under both CrPC, 1973 and BNSS, 2023, handcuffing is strictly regulated, not freely permitted. The law insists on minimum restraint, human dignity, and judicial oversight. BNSS continues the constitutional vision laid down by the Supreme Court—
handcuffs are a last resort, not a symbol of arrest.

Handcuffing Case Laws in India

The law on handcuffing in India has been developed almost entirely through judicial decisions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that handcuffing is a serious violation of personal liberty and human dignity and cannot be used as a routine police practice. Below are the most important case laws on handcuffing, explained in simple, exam-oriented language.

1. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)

This is the leading and most important case on handcuffing in India.

The Supreme Court held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and degrading. The Court clearly stated that police cannot handcuff an accused as a matter of routine. Handcuffing can be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the accused is violent or likely to escape.

The Court laid down important guidelines:

Handcuffing must be justified by clear reasons
Reasons must be recorded in writing
Police must justify handcuffing before a magistrate
Mechanical or habitual handcuffing is unconstitutional

The Court famously observed:

“Handcuffs are not toys for the police to play with.”

This case firmly linked handcuffing with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)

Although this case mainly dealt with prisoners’ rights, it strongly influenced handcuffing law.

The Supreme Court held that:

Prisoners and undertrials are not slaves
They retain their basic human rights
Any form of torture, cruelty, or degrading treatment is unconstitutional

The Court emphasized that custody does not mean loss of dignity. This case laid the foundation for later rulings restricting handcuffing.

3. Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995)

In this case, the Supreme Court took a very strict stand against handcuffing.

The Court held that:

Handcuffing without judicial permission is illegal
Even hardened criminals cannot be handcuffed automatically
Police must seek prior permission of the magistrate
Accused should not be handcuffed while being produced in court

The Court issued binding directions to all police authorities, reinforcing that handcuffing violates Article 21 unless fully justified.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that:

Handcuffing an undertrial during court proceedings amounts to public humiliation
Such treatment violates human dignity
Accused persons must be treated with respect inside court premises

The judgment reinforced that presumption of innocence must be respected.

5. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1981)

The Supreme Court condemned police brutality and emphasized that:

Any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is unconstitutional
The police cannot use force or restraints arbitrarily

This case strengthened constitutional protection against abusive custodial practices, including handcuffing.

6. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) (Indirect relevance)

Although not directly about handcuffing, this landmark case laid down guidelines for arrest and custody.

The Court stressed:

Protection of human dignity during arrest
Transparency and accountability of police
Respect for Article 21 at all stages of arrest

These principles apply equally to handcuffing.

Indian courts have made it clear that handcuffing is a last resort, not a symbol of authority. Through landmark judgments like Prem Shankar Shukla, Sunil Batra, and Citizens for Democracy, the Supreme Court has protected human dignity, personal liberty, and the presumption of innocence.

In simple words: An accused may be arrested, but cannot be humiliated.

Supreme Court Guidelines On Handcuffing In India

The Supreme Court of India has laid down strict guidelines on handcuffing to protect human dignity, personal liberty, and the presumption of innocence. These guidelines mainly flow from landmark judgments like Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) and Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995). The Court has made it clear that handcuffing is not a routine police power and can be used only in exceptional situations.

1. Handcuffing is Not a Rule, Only an Exception

The Supreme Court has held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and degrading. It must not be used as a matter of routine or convenience by the police. The normal rule is no handcuffing.

2. Only in Exceptional Circumstances

Handcuffing is permitted only when absolutely necessary, such as:

When the accused is violent or dangerous
When there is a real risk of escape
When the accused is a habitual or hardened criminal
When there is a threat to public safety or police personnel

Mere seriousness of the offence is not a valid reason.

3. Recording of Reasons is Mandatory

Police officers must record clear and specific reasons in writing for using handcuffs. Vague or general reasons are not acceptable. Mechanical handcuffing is unconstitutional.

4. Judicial Approval is Compulsory

Handcuffing must be justified before a Magistrate. Police cannot decide on their own to handcuff an accused. The Magistrate must:

Examine the reasons carefully
Record independent satisfaction
Not grant mechanical approval

5. No Handcuffing in Court Premises

An accused must not be handcuffed while being produced in court, inside court premises, or during judicial proceedings, except with express permission of the court.

6. No Public Humiliation

The Supreme Court has emphasized that public display of handcuffed accused is unconstitutional. Arrest must not be used as a tool of humiliation or punishment.

7. Equality and Dignity Must Be Maintained

Handcuffing violates:

Article 21 – Right to life with dignity
Article 14 – Right to equality

All accused persons must be treated equally and humanely.

8. Liability for Violation

If these guidelines are violated:

Police officers may face departmental action
Courts may order compensation
It may amount to contempt of court

The Supreme Court guidelines ensure that handcuffing is a last resort, not a symbol of police authority. The focus is on human dignity, constitutional morality, and the rule of law.

Accused cannot be handcuffed without reason: Karnataka high court

In June 2022, the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) delivered an important judgment reinforcing the constitutional limits on handcuffing of accused persons. The Court ordered the State of Karnataka to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to a law student who was unlawfully handcuffed by the police in Belagavi district. The judgment strongly reaffirmed that handcuffing is not a routine police practice and violates Article 21 of the Constitution if done without justification.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a law student, was arrested by the police and handcuffed without any recorded reason. Aggrieved by this unnecessary restraint and humiliation, the petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court alleging violation of his right to life, dignity, and personal liberty under Article 21.

Observations of the Court

Justice Suraj Govindaraj categorically observed:

“An accused who is arrested can normally not be handcuffed.”

The Court held that handcuffing is permissible only in extreme and exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a real risk of escape or violence. Even in such cases, the arresting officer must record specific reasons, which must be capable of judicial scrutiny.

The Court made it clear that:

Mere arrest or seriousness of offence is not a valid ground
Handcuffing without recorded reasons is illegal
Arrest should never be used as a tool of humiliation

Although the Court noted that the petitioner was not paraded publicly (based on available footage), it still held that unnecessary handcuffing itself amounts to a violation of Article 21. Since the arrest was otherwise lawful but the handcuffing was unjustified, the Court awarded ₹2 lakh compensation, payable within six weeks.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

Recording of Reasons Mandatory
No person—whether an accused, undertrial, or convict—can be handcuffed without recorded justification in the case diary or official records.
Judicial Permission Required
Police must obtain prior authorization from the trial court before handcuffing undertrial prisoners produced before courts.
Consequences for Violation
If police officers handcuff without permission or reasons:
- The handcuffing will be deemed illegal
- Officers may face penal and disciplinary action
Use of Body Cameras
The Court directed the Director General of Police to consider the use of body cameras to record arrest procedures, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The Court clarified that any person who believes they have been unjustly handcuffed can approach the courts by filing a petition for violation of Article 21. Courts are empowered to:

Investigate the legality of restraint
Grant compensation
Issue corrective directions

Legal Significance

This judgment:

Reinforces Supreme Court guidelines in Prem Shankar Shukla and Citizens for Democracy
Strengthens protection of human dignity
Promotes police accountability
Encourages use of technology for transparency

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling sends a clear constitutional message:

Handcuffs are a last resort, not a symbol of arrest.

No individual—accused, undertrial, or convict—can be restrained without clear, recorded, and judicially reviewable reasons. The judgment strengthens Article 21 jurisprudence and ensures that law enforcement balances security with human dignity.

Handcuffing as per new law the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, clarify the confusion surrounding the Supreme Court's directives on the use of handcuffs, which are frequently violated, leading to complications for the police. This legislation seeks to establish clear guidelines and conditions under which handcuffing can be deemed appropriate, thereby providing a legal framework to ensure that police actions are in compliance with the law and human rights standards.

According to Section 43(3) of the Bill, only individuals categorized as habitual, repeat offenders who have previously escaped custody, members of organized crime syndicates, terror suspects, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, currency counterfeiters, paedophiles, and economic offenders are permitted to be handcuffed. This section also applies to individuals involved in illegal possession of arms and ammunition, acid attack perpetrators, and those committing offences against the State, including actions that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, or those involved in significant economic offences.

Clause 43(3) of BNSS says,

Clause 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides a detailed framework for the use of handcuffs by police officers, emphasizing the necessity of considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed. According to this clause, police officers are authorized to use handcuffs during the arrest of individuals who are involved in a wide range of serious crimes.

These include habitual or repeat offenders who have previously escaped from custody, individuals involved in organized crime, terrorist activities, drug-related crimes, illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attacks, counterfeiting of currency, human trafficking, sexual offences against children, offences against the State that threaten its sovereignty, unity, and integrity, as well as economic offences. This provision aims to strike a balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, ensuring that the use of handcuffs is reserved for cases where it is deemed absolutely necessary due to the severity of the crime.

The parliamentary committee recommended amending Clause 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to exclude "economic offences" from the list of crimes warranting the use of handcuffs during arrests.

This recommendation stemmed from the concern that the term "economic offences" covers a broad spectrum of crimes, ranging from minor to major infractions. The committee argued that applying a uniform policy of handcuffing to all individuals accused of economic offences, regardless of the severity of their alleged crimes, might not be appropriate.

Given the diverse nature of economic offences, the committee suggested that including them as a criterion for handcuffing could lead to excessive and potentially unjustified use of restraints, thereby necessitating the proposed amendment to focus handcuffing practices on offences that pose a more direct and immediate threat to public safety and national security.

Is handcuffing is permitted in India?

Yes, handcuffing is permitted in India, albeit within strict guidelines and under specific circumstances. The primary criterion for handcuffing a prisoner, whether they are an under-trial or a convicted individual, is the existence of a clear and imminent risk of escape. This measure is not to be taken arbitrarily or as a routine practice.

Before proceeding with handcuffing, the police or law enforcement agencies are required to provide a justified reason for the necessity of such an action. This justification must be presented before a trial court, and it is only upon receiving explicit permission from a magistrate that the police are authorized to handcuff an individual.

This protocol ensures that the practice of handcuffing is not misused and is applied judiciously, respecting the rights and dignity of the individuals involved, in accordance with the principles laid out in the Indian Constitution and upheld by various court rulings on the matter.

In 2016, the Bombay High Court ordered the union territories of Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli to compensate a newspaper editor with Rs 4 lakh for being unlawfully handcuffed and paraded in public.

International Law on Handcuffing

International law on handcuffing, while not explicitly detailed in a single document, is influenced by various international human rights instruments and standards. These instruments aim to protect the dignity and rights of individuals in custody or detention, setting guidelines for the treatment of detainees that implicitly affect the use of handcuffs. The key principles are derived from the following sources:

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The UDHR, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Although it does not specifically mention handcuffing, its provisions on dignity, liberty, and security of the person (Article 3) and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5) provide a basis for arguing against unnecessary restraints.

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The ICCPR, in force since 1976, commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including rights to fair treatment in custody (Articles 9 and 10). These articles imply that any form of restraint, including handcuffing, should not be arbitrary and should respect the dignity of the person.

3. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules)

Adopted in 2015, the Nelson Mandela Rules provide comprehensive guidelines on the treatment of prisoners, aiming to protect their fundamental rights. Rule 47 explicitly states that instruments of restraint are to be used only as a last resort, where other forms of control would not be effective to prevent escape or violence.

4. United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials

Adopted by the General Assembly in 1979, this Code emphasizes that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. This principle applies to the use of handcuffs, suggesting their use should be proportionate, non-arbitrary, and necessary under the circumstances.

5. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

For countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the ECHR provides a legal framework that includes the right to liberty and security (Article 5) and the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3). The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on cases involving handcuffing, emphasizing the need for its necessity and proportionality.

Conclusion

Handcuffing in India is a contentious issue that sits at the intersection of law enforcement efficiency and the protection of human rights. While it is recognized as a necessary tool in certain situations to prevent harm or escape, the legal and judicial frameworks emphasize its judicious use. Continuous dialogue, training, and awareness among law enforcement agencies, coupled with judicial oversight, are essential to ensure that the practice of handcuffing aligns with both public safety requirements and individual freedoms.

References:

Handcuffing Law in India