It states: “The police officer may, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while effecting the arrest of a person who is a habitual, repeat offender who escaped from custody, who has committed offence of organised crime, offence of terrorist act, drug related crime, or offence of illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency notes, human trafficking, sexual offences against children, offences against the State, including acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India or economic offences.”
Even within these categories, the provision uses the word “may” and not “shall”. The officer is required to weigh the nature and gravity of the offence and the facts of the individual case before deciding whether restraints are necessary.
The Prisoners (Attendance in Court) Act, 1955, under Section 9(2)(e), allows a state government to make rules providing for “the escort of persons confined in a prison to and from courts in which their attendance is required and for their custody during the period of such attendance”.
What courts have held previously
In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Supreme Court described handcuffing as “inhuman”, “unreasonable”, and “arbitrary”. The court said that “to prevent the escape of an under-trial is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself, be castigated. But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.”
The petitioner in that case was an undertrial lodged in Tihar Jail who sent a telegram to the Supreme Court stating that he was routinely being handcuffed during transit to court despite earlier judicial directions to the contrary.
The court held the practice unconstitutional. Handcuffing, it said, violates Articles 14, 19, and 21, and should be reserved only for cases where there is a specific and documented reason to believe that no lesser measure would prevent escape or violence. “Handcuffs should be the last refuge, not the routine regimen,” the court held.
The court further held that the rule is freedom from restraint, and any exception requires justification that must be recorded in writing and explained before the magistrate.
In Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995), the president of a civil liberties organisation visited a government hospital in Guwahati and found seven undertrial detainees handcuffed to their beds inside a locked room guarded by armed police. Noting that the directions in Prem Shankar Shukla were not being followed, the top court held that “we declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner, convicted or under-trial, while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back”.
In January 2026, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court, in Islam Khan and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, heard a petition alleging that police had made it a routine practice to compel arrested persons to sit outside police stations, take photographs of them, and circulate those images.
The petitioners alleged that accused persons were forced to strip and sit in a humiliating condition, clothed only in undergarments, while photographs were taken and disseminated.
The court held that such actions were “arbitrary, illegal and reflective of unbridled caprice, wholly unbecoming of a disciplined force entrusted with the protection of citizens rights”. It further observed that “any infringement of fundamental rights cannot be tolerated” and that the allegations disclosed “a serious and systemic threat to the fundamental right to life with dignity” under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In April 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Sangram Singh Rajoot v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, ordered an inquiry into an incident in which an accused person was allegedly “paraded on foot from the police station to the court” to produce him before the magistrate.
Observing that “any action of the State or its instrumentalities which results in humiliation, degradation, or public shaming of an individual, without authority of law, would fall foul of the said constitutional mandate”, the court held that the mere fact that an accused was taken on foot would not by itself establish a violation of fundamental rights “unless it is shown that such act was done deliberately to humiliate or with mala fide intention”.
Across these cases, courts have emphasised that an accused person retains constitutional protections until conviction and that restrictions on liberty or dignity must have legal justification. In Citizens for Democracy, the Supreme Court had noted that “reckless handcuffing and chaining in public degrades, puts to shame finer sensibilities and is a slur on our culture”, while directing that violations of its earlier guidelines could attract contempt proceedings in addition to other legal consequences.
Handcuffing violates Articles 14, 19, and 21, and should be reserved only for cases where there is a specific and documented reason to believe that no lesser measure would prevent escape or violence. Photo: Unsplash 
Share
