INTRODUCTION
The recent incident of a student being deported from the US in handcuffs has raised a wave of outrage and concerns over both national and international media. The student who did not even commit any criminal or violent act is being paraded around in handcuffs, which is seen by many as an excessive and humiliating procedure. The video of this incident went viral on social media platforms, causing a feeling of dismay and defiance among the general public.[1] This ignited questions and debates in many regarding the protection of human dignity and whether the practice of handcuffing is being misused not only abroad but here in India as well. Despite many repetitive judgments or judicial pronouncements against the unnecessary or unruly use of handcuffs, people still ask: Do police still violate the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the right against handcuffing?
THE RIGHT AGAINST HANDCUFFING
Although there is no such explicit right against the arbitrary handcuffing in the Constitution of India, it finds its backing under Article 21[2], which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has, through various rulings have interpreted this article to include a protection or safeguard against the degrading, humiliating, and inhumane practices, including unjustified handcuffing. In Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration of India, it was contended by the court that the handcuffing of prisoners, without adequate justification and prior permission of a magistrate, is unconstitutional and violative of human dignity, which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated: “To bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets, and to stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity,
vulgarise society and foul the soul of our Constitutional culture.”[3] This ruling made it a requirement that: Handcuffs should be used only in “extreme cases” such as in cases where there is danger of escape by the prisoner or the danger to commit injury to himself or others. Also, it has been specified that even in such conditions, the justification must be recorded and permission by the magistrate is mandatorily required. The view of the court that bar fetters and handcuffs infringe the personal liberty of an individual severely, upholding that such practices should only be resorted to if the behaviour of such a person justifies it, in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, was further reaffirmed in Citizens for Democracy v State of Assam in which the court clarified that unjustified handcuffing, or handcuffing without the judicial permission is illegal as well as actionable.[4] [5]
BNSS: LEGALISING ROUTINE USE?
The enactment of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which came into effect in July 2024, created a significant shift in India’s criminal procedural framework. Section 43(3) of the BNSS deals specifically with handcuffs, allowing their use in case of a person involved who is being arrested for a serious offence such as terrorism, organised crime, murder, rape, and other crimes punishable with seven years or more of imprisonment.[6] This section allows the police officers to use handcuffs while arresting or while producing an accused before the court, based on the possibility of security threats caused by the individual. Thus arises a challenge of not only legal but also institutional: ensuring that the broader objective of BNSS, i.e. efficient criminal procedure, does not arise at the cost of violating constitutional protection against inhuman and arbitrary treatment. Although Section 43(3) appears to provide a legal procedure for handcuffing in grave situations, it cannot overreach the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation of the Fundamental right under Article 21. There is a need to maintain constant harmony between the BNSS and the Constitution, which would require police officers to use section 43(3) of the BNSS with caution and due diligence through proper assessment, documentation of reasons, and seeking judicial oversight where required.
It is also essential that the states and police issue Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and training modules to ensure that the application of restraint remains lawful and proportional.
THE GROUND REALITY
Despite clear and emphasised judicial guidelines, reports and visual evidence demonstrate that handcuffing remains a common and mechanical practice often used routinely by the law enforcement agencies of India.[7] The report on The Status of Policing in India Report, 2025[8], documents the reality that the adherence to the guidelines mandated by the court is poor, and violations by the means of shackling undertrials, as well as the individuals not yet convicted, are widespread. A 2021 report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) pointed out a great deal of violations of Supreme Court directives in various states, highlighting systemic non-compliance with the requirement for magistrate approval before handcuffing.[9] Moreover, Human Rights Commissions frequently receive complaints regarding the unnecessary use of restraints, contradicting the intended protection by the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Procedural Safeguard Still Incomplete
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution[10] directs police not only to communicate the grounds for arrest to the individual so arrested but also to inform the family members of the arrested. The burden of proof for the compliance lies wholly upon the law-enforcing bodies, and in the absence of records, such as justification approved by a magistrate, documented case diary entries, and notification to family, courts may consider the arrest and custody as unlawful, thus invalidating detention.[11]
Administrative Convenience vs Constitutional Duty
Police may suggest administrative convenience or may claim practical necessity as a reason for overlooking the guidelines established for arrest, but the courts have held that no such consideration can override the constitutional rights and binding decisions. The guidelines of the Supreme Court are not merely directions but constitute legal enforceability.
CONCLUSION
The handcuffing of the Indian student before deportation acted as a reminder of how easily the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and dignity can be disregarded on the grounds of procedural easement. Moving away from such hollow promises towards a meaningful enforcement, following of regulatory reforms, is imperative. First, legislative codification of the Prem Shankar Shukla principle would transform judicial guidelines into binding statutory obligations with strict penal consequences for violation.[12] Second, mandatory human rights and custodial ethics training for police recruits and serving officers must be institutionalised through the Police Academies and National Judicial Academy, ensuring operational familiarity with the law. Third, Magistrates must be authorised to demand accountability reports in cases of handcuffing, treating violations as contempt of court where necessary. Fourth, setting up of independent authorities to manage complaints at the state level under the directives of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, which provides citizens with accessible avenues of redress.[13] Lastly, evolving to strong internal monitoring mechanisms, including body camera evidence and digital incident logs, would help deter arbitrary resort to humiliation while reinforcing institutional transparency.
Only through such practical, legal, administrative, and cultural reforms can India move beyond the symbolism of rights jurisprudence to secure in practice the constitutional promise of dignity and liberty.
Author(s) Name: Anayza Faiyaz (Barkatullah University, Bhopal)
References:
[1] TOI World Desk, ‘“Handcuffed, crying” Indian student in US pinned to ground, deported; video sparks outrage’ The Times of India (India, 9 June 2025) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/handcuffed-crying-indian-student-in-us-pinned-to-ground-deported-video-sparks-outrage/articleshow/121726202.cms > accessed 7 August 2025.
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[3] Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1535, [7].
[4] Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.
[5] Citizens for Democracy v State of Assam AIR 1996 SC 2193.
[6] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 43(3).
[7] Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, Status of Policing in India Report 2025 (Common Cause, 2025) <https://commoncause.in/uploadimage/SPIR-2025.pdf > accessed 7 August 7 2025.
[8] ibid.
[9] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Handcuffing in India: A Continuing Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines’ (CHRI, 2021).
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 22(1).
[11] Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr, (2025) INSC 162.
[12] Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1535.
[13] Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1.
