BNSS Section 46 – No unnecessary restraint explained

Introduction

“Next The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

This single sentence from BNSS Section 46 – No unnecessary restraint captures a vital safeguard in Indian criminal procedure. While the State has the authority to arrest, that power is not limitless. Officers must act within clear boundaries to ensure that an individual is not subjected to unnecessary physical or psychological force once taken into custody.

This article explains the statutory background of Section 46, its legal interpretation, and how it applies in real-life policing. It also explores the rights of arrestees, practical implications for officers, and remedies when restraint goes beyond lawful limits.

Background and Statutory Context

BNSS Section 46 is part of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as India’s primary procedural law in criminal matters. This section reiterates a long-standing principle: the State may restrain a person only to the extent necessary to prevent escape or ensure lawful custody.

Historically, similar provisions existed in Section 49 of the CrPC, which held that an arrested person “shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary.” The BNSS maintains this rule but frames it in a more modern context, aligning with global standards on detainee rights and proportionality in law enforcement.

BNSS Section 46 interacts closely with related provisions on arrest procedures, use of force, and custody standards. For example, BNSS Section 43 governs how force may be used in effecting an arrest, while later sections address medical examination, detention, and production before a magistrate. Together, they create a framework balancing the authority of the police with the constitutional liberties of the citizen.

Legal Meaning and Interpretation

At its core, BNSS Section 46 – No unnecessary restraint is about necessity and proportionality. Officers may restrain an individual only to the degree required to prevent escape or harm. Anything beyond that risks being unlawful.

Necessity

Necessity means the action taken must be essential under the circumstances. If an individual is cooperative and poses no threat of flight, binding their hands and feet may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if the arrestee has attempted to flee or resist violently, handcuffing or even additional restraint might be justified.

Proportionality

Proportionality requires balancing the degree of restraint with the actual risk. A peaceful 60-year-old accused of a minor non-violent offence does not require the same level of restraint as a repeat offender known for violent escapes. Courts often assess whether officers could have used a less restrictive measure.

Judicial Interpretation

Courts have historically guarded this principle. In [Case Name, Year], the court held that handcuffing without specific justification violated personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Similarly, in [Case Example], judges criticized blanket use of irons or restraints, ruling that every decision must be based on individual circumstances.

A useful hypothetical illustrates this:

Necessary restraint: A suspect charged with armed robbery has previously attempted to escape custody. Officers handcuff him while transporting him to court.
Unnecessary restraint: A cooperative woman accused of cheque fraud is shackled to a hospital bed during medical examination, despite posing no escape risk.

In the second case, the additional restraint would likely be deemed unlawful under BNSS Section 46.

Reasonable Force

This section also connects to the broader idea of reasonable force on arrest. Force or restraint must always stop once compliance is secured. Continuing to tie, hold, or shackle beyond that point can be challenged as excessive. Courts often rely on international standards, including UN guidelines on the treatment of detainees, to interpret what “reasonable” looks like.

Practical Implications for Officers

For police and law enforcement officers, BNSS Section 46 provides a clear operational standard: use restraint only when justified, and stop once the need ends.

Best practices include:

Individual assessment: Decide based on the accused’s age, health, offence type, and conduct.
Documentation: Record reasons for applying handcuffs or other restraints in the arrest memo.
De-escalation first: Verbal persuasion and controlled escort techniques should precede physical restraint.
Training: Regular instruction on human rights standards and restraint alternatives reduces liability.

Examples of unnecessary restraint may include:

Handcuffing a cooperative accused during questioning inside a secure police station.
Shackling a bedridden or injured suspect in hospital.
Keeping someone bound after they have been placed in a locked cell.

Overuse of restraints not only risks violating BNSS Section 46 but can also expose officers to disciplinary action, civil suits, or even criminal liability.

Rights and Remedies for Arrestees

Arrestees subjected to unlawful or excessive restraint are not without recourse. Detainee rights under BNSS and constitutional protections empower them to challenge misconduct.

Possible remedies include:

Internal complaint – Filing with the police department’s supervisory authority or human rights cell.
Judicial remedies – Approaching a magistrate during remand hearings or filing a writ petition for violation of fundamental rights.
Civil claims – Seeking compensation for wrongful restraint or custodial humiliation.
Criminal complaint – In cases of serious abuse, officers may face charges under the Penal Code.

Evidence is critical. Medical records, photographs of injuries, witness testimony, and arrest memos can help establish the extent of unnecessary restraint. Acting promptly improves the likelihood of accountability, as delays weaken both proof and judicial sympathy.

FAQs

Q1: When is handcuffing considered excessive?
Handcuffing becomes excessive if applied without justification, such as on a compliant suspect with no risk of escape. Courts demand case-specific reasons for restraints.

Q2: Can officers shackle an accused in hospital?
Only if there’s a genuine risk of escape. Shackling a bedridden or unconscious patient usually violates Section 46’s limits on restraint.

Q3: What counts as “reasonable force” during arrest?
Reasonable force is the minimum required to secure compliance and prevent escape. Once the person submits, further restraint is unnecessary.

Q4: Are all prisoners handcuffed during transport?
No. Blanket rules are unlawful. Officers must evaluate each case individually and record their reasons for applying restraints.

Q5: How can a detainee challenge excessive restraint quickly?
By informing the magistrate during their first court appearance or filing an immediate complaint with a human rights body or senior police official.

Conclusion

BNSS Section 46 – No unnecessary restraint reinforces a simple but powerful rule: restraint must be necessary, proportionate, and justified. For officers, it means assessing each situation carefully and avoiding default reliance on physical control. For citizens, it ensures that liberty is not curtailed beyond what the law requires.

Whether you are a law student, practitioner, or officer, understanding this section is essential. If you face or witness excessive restraint, consult legal guidance, report the matter, and insist on accountability. The balance between effective policing and fundamental rights depends on vigilance from all sides.

Search This Blog

LatestLaws