AP High Court seeks Centre's response on plea challenging BNSS provision allowing handcuffing of accused

The Andhra Pradesh High Court last week sought the Central government's response to a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 43(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which allows police to use handcuffs while arresting persons accused of certain serious offences.

A Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati issued notice to the Union Ministries of Law & Justice and Home Affairs.

The plea filed by Advocate Keyur Akkiraju contends that Section 43(3) of the BNSS violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is argued that the provision effectively grants blanket powers to law enforcement authorities, undermining the dignity of individuals and contravening constitutional protections as well as established Supreme Court precedents.

It contends that the discretion given to police officers to decide when to handcuff an accused is excessively broad and risks stigmatising individuals even before guilt is established, thereby eroding the fundamental presumption of innocence.

"Every person accused of having committed a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a Court of law. The impugned provision is opposed to the fundamental principle of criminal law, i.e., presumption of innocence," the plea reads.

The petition further submits that Section 43(3) is inconsistent with settled constitutional jurisprudence. By granting blanket discretionary powers to law enforcement authorities, the provision undermines the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against arbitrary restraint, it states.

It is also contended that the provision fails the test of proportionality, lacks a rational connection to the objective of securing an accused and arbitrarily discriminates between categories of offenders without any reasonable justification.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner emphasises that handcuffing should remain an exception rather than the norm. It should only be permitted with judicial oversight in cases where there is a clear risk of escape or violence, the plea adds.

 Advocate A Srinath appeared for the petitioner.

[Read order]