INTRODUCTION
As per the definition of the Collins Dictionary, Handcuffs are “two metal rings which are joined together and can be locked round someone’s wrists, usually by police during an arrest”. This practice has long been used by law enforcement. Supporters of the practice argue that it is necessary to ensure that the offender does not escape and also to ensure the protection of the officer. On the other side, critics argue that the practice of handcuffing is against human dignity and is an unnecessary practice. The history of handcuffing begins around 400 BC, when it was used to control and enslave prisoners of war. During the British period, handcuffs were extensively used against the revolutionaries to prevent them from escaping or hurting the officers.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 21
This article states that nobody should be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Handcuffing would be a violation of Article 21 when it is used without proper justification or without any law authorizing the officer to do so. The right to live with dignity also comes within the ambit of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The use of handcuffs unnecessarily undermines the right to live with dignity.
Article 14
This article states that there should be equality before and equal protection of law must be provided within the territory of India. Handcuffing would be a violation of Article 14 if prisoners are handcuffed on the basis of arbitrary classification. Further, if prisoners with a higher status are not handcuffed while prisoners of a lower status are handcuffed despite both committing the same crime, it would be a violation of equal treatment under Article 14. It is important to note that Article 14 does not totally bar classification but such classification must be reasonable and based on intelligible differentia.
Article 15
This article prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, race, sex or place of birth. If a prisoner is handcuffed based on any of the above-mentioned distinctions, it would be violative of Article 15. Differential treatment on the use of handcuffs has to be based on a legitimate and objective criterion as defined by law.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
PRISONS ACT 1894
The prisons are regulated by the Prisons Act 1894. Section 46(7) of the act allows for the imposition of fetters of such manner and weight as may be prescribed by rules made by the state government. The imposition of fetters could take place when the prisoner commits any of the prison offences under Section 45 of the act. Such offences include willful damage to prison property, assault or use of criminal force, use of threatening language, immoral or indecent behavior etc. Section 46 also allows for other types of punishments for committing any offence under Section 45, including whipping, cellular confinement, hard labour etc. The last proviso to Section 46 states that punishments of handcuffs, fetters or whipping shall not be applicable to any female or civil prisoner. Under Section 56, the superintendent of jail is empowered to confine prisoners in irons if it is necessary for the safe custody of the prisoners. However, the sanction of the state government is required. Section 57 provides for imposition of fetters on prisoners who are under a sentence of transportation. This provision has become obsolete in the modern era as sentences of transportation are no longer given by the courts in India. During the British era, prisoners under sentence of transportation were sent to faraway places. An example of such a place would be Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Section 58 provides that no prisoner shall be ironed by the jailor except in case of urgent necessity.
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA
The BNSS has brought back the use of handcuffs while arresting a person or producing a person before court. This is provided under Section 43(3) of the BNSS. However, it can only be used under certain limited circumstances. Handcuffs can be used against repeat offenders, those who have escaped from custody or offenders who have committed the offences of rape, murder, acid attack, organized attack, terrorist acts, offences against the state, drug related crimes, illegal possession of firearms, counterfeiting of coins and currencies. While this section is analogous to Section 46 of the CRPC, the latter did not have any provision for the use of handcuffs, though police officers could use necessary force to effectuate the arrest of a person who resists the arrest or attempts to evade the arrest. Section 43(3) is the creation of BNSS and was not present in the CRPC.
POSITION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The UN General Assembly had adopted the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners in 2015. This is also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. The rules prohibit the use of restraints that are inherently painful or degrading. Rule 47(1) says that the use of irons, chains and other instruments shall be prohibited if they are inherently painful or degrading. Rule 47(2) permits other methods of restraint as a precautionary measure during transfer of the prisoner by prison authorities if other methods of avoiding the prisoner from injuring others or damaging property fail.
PRECEDENTS
In the landmark case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration(1979), the petitioner was a convict who was serving a death sentence in prison. He has written a letter to the Supreme Court questioning the treatment of prisoners at Tihar Jail in Delhi. He had also made a mention of the torture of another prisoner by the head warden for the purpose of extracting money. The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an indiscriminate use of handcuffs by the jail officials and such use needs to be justified and not used as a form of punishment. The Court also added that the indiscriminate use of handcuffs is a violation of the right to live with dignity.
In the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration(1980), the petitioner was taken from Tihar jail to the court in handcuffs. He had contended that the use of handcuffs was humiliating for the prisoners and filed a writ petition. The Supreme Court had once again held that handcuffing is an inhumane practice and is arbitrary and unreasonable unless justified by a fair procedure. The court had also come down heavily on the Punjab Prisoners Rules which made them classify prisoners on the basis of caste and family background. It was struck down for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Handcuffs cannot be used unless there is a demonstrable risk that the prisoner is going to escape.
In the case of Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam(1995), the Supreme Court had taken note of a letter from a journalist which spoke the detainees being handcuffed to their hospital beds despite the fact that the room was being guarded by several police officers and the room was barred. The court, while relying on the judgments of Sunil Batra and Prem Shukla, held that handcuffs and other fetters should not be forced on a prisoner, whether a convict or undertrial prisoner, while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while being transported one jail to another. The court also elucidated various guidelines;
- The police and jail authorities shall not have the power themselves to handcuff any inmate in prison or while transporting a prisoner from one jail to another.
- When the police or jail authorities have strong reasons to believe that the prisoner is going to escape, the permission for handcuffing the prisoner should be sought from the magistrate.
- When a person is arrested by the police and is remanded to either judicial or non-judicial custody, handcuffs cannot be used unless special orders are obtained from the magistrate at the time of granting the remand.
CONCLUSION
The use of handcuffs has been a controversial practice. It is considered to be violation of man’s right to live with dignity. The statutes passed during the colonial period such as the Prisons Act 1894 had express provisions related to the imposition of fetters and handcuffs. The Supreme Court has taken a very liberal stance with regard to the use of handcuffs, referring to the practice as “inhumane” and “degrading”. It also laid down guidelines which called for the use of handcuffs only in rare situations. The BNSS has prescribed the use of handcuffs under certain circumstances or when the prisoner has committed certain serious offences.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)