[Handcuffing Powers Under BNSS] “Different Arrest Norms Needed For ‘Parasites’ In Society”: SC

The Supreme Court Today (Oct 18) observed that broad police powers regarding arrest and handcuffing of accused under the new criminal laws may be justified in serious criminal cases. Bench was hearing a petition challenging provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure. Court expressed his doubts with the challenge to the constitutional validity of the handcuffing provision in particular.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court made a significant observation regarding the broad police powers pertaining to arrests and the handcuffing of accused individuals under the newly enacted criminal laws. These powers, the Court suggested, could be justified in serious criminal cases.

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition challenging several provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure. The challenge specifically targeted sections of the BNSS that provide the police with expanded authority.

The petitioners questioned the validity of certain sections of the BNSS, including:

• Section 43(3), which grants the police the power to handcuff an accused during arrest and court production based on the nature and gravity of the offense, as well as the accused’s criminal history.

• Section 107, related to the attachment, forfeiture, or restoration of property.

• Section 223, which deals with the examination of the complainant.

• Section 356, concerning inquiries, trials, or judgments in absentia of a proclaimed offender.

Justice Surya Kant, during the hearing, expressed skepticism about the petitioners’ challenge to the constitutional validity of the handcuffing provision.

He remarked,

“Look at the kind of parasites we have in our society. Terrorists, acid attack throwers, hardened and habitual offenders. For certain offences, arrest norms have to be different!”

This statement underscores the Court’s belief that more stringent arrest protocols are necessary for individuals involved in particularly egregious crimes.

Although the Court did not issue an official notice regarding the matter, it directed the petitioner, the Mannargudi Bar Association, to submit a detailed compilation of best practices from different jurisdictions concerning the aforementioned provisions.

This request signals the Court’s intent to conduct a thorough examination before making any final determinations on the issue.

The Mannargudi Bar Association, represented by Advocate MP Parthiban, filed the petition, arguing that the BNSS provides the police with “unguided and unrestricted powers“ that could potentially violate the fundamental rights of the accused. The petition emphasizes the need to strike a balance between law enforcement and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared on behalf of the petitioner, stressing the concerns about the expansive powers granted to the police under the new legal framework.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s initial reaction suggests that while there may be merit to the petitioners’ concerns, in cases involving grave offenses, enhanced police powers, including handcuffing, might be deemed necessary.

The debate now awaits further deliberation, with a comprehensive review of practices from various jurisdictions likely to play a pivotal role in shaping the final decision.

CASE TITLE:
Mannargudi Bar Association v. Union of India and ors.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on BNSS

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES