Different arrest norms needed for 'parasites' in society: Supreme Court on handcuffing powers under BNSS

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that broad police powers regarding arrest and handcuffing of accused under the new criminal laws may be justified in serious criminal cases. (Mannargudi Bar Association v. Union of India and ors)

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition challenging provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioners specifically challenged Sections 43(3) [power of police to handcuff accused during arrest and court production keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, and criminal antecedents], 107 (attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property), 223 (examination of complainant) and 356 (inquiry, trial or judgment in absentia of proclaimed offender).

Justice Kant expressed his doubts with the challenge to the constitutional validity of the handcuffing provision in particular, and 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!"

The Court eventually did not issue notice in the matter, but asked the petitioner, Mannargudi Bar Association, to file a detailed compilation of best practices in different jurisdictions with respect to the above provisions.

The bar body, in its plea filed through Advocate MP Parthiban, contended that the BNSS grants unguided and unrestricted powers to the police to violate the fundamental rights of accused.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared for the petitioner.