Section 46 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: No unnecessary restraint

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Procedural Safeguards
Police Powers & Rights
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class / High Court
Formerly Sec 49 CrPC

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 46

Section 46 codifies the fundamental principle of human dignity in criminal justice, enacting that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent their escape.

  • Prohibition of Unnecessary Restraint: Arrestee must not be subjected to excessive physical force, beatings, or humiliating restraint.
  • Ban on Routine Handcuffing: Routine, mechanical, or exhibitionist handcuffing is strictly prohibited unless specifically permitted by judicial order.
  • Proportionality Principle: Restraint must be strictly limited to what is objectively necessary to prevent physical escape.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526: Justice Krishna Iyer held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, and arbitrary; insurance against escape does not justify routine irons. Handcuffs can be used only when there is clear, recorded danger of violence or escape.
  • Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995) 3 SCC 743: The Supreme Court banned handcuffing of undertrial prisoners in hospitals and courtrooms, directing that police cannot use handcuffs without prior judicial approval from the Magistrate.
  • D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416: Affirmed that custodial torture and humiliating restraint violate Article 21 and constitute human rights violations.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If police parade an accused in handcuffs without prior written judicial permission, move an application before the Magistrate citing *Prem Shankar Shukla* and *Citizen for Democracy* for contempt and departmental action against the escort officers.