In a recent observation, the Supreme Court of India suggested the need for distinct arrest norms for what it referred to as parasites in society. This case has thrown open some serious questions relating to the constitutionality and acceptability of handcuffing during arrests as well as the treatment meted out towards the accused persons in society, particularly within the framework of criminal law and human rights. Background Case The case originated from a petition challenging the general practice of using handcuffs during arrests under the provision of the BNSS. The argument of the petitioner is that handcuffing persons, especially in non-violent or minor offenses, is a deprivation of their rights to dignity and right to being presumed innocent till proven otherwise. As a matter of fact, BNSS vests law-enforcing agencies with special powers, particularly as regards arrest and procedures surrounding offenses concerning excise violations. The petitioner pleaded for the Supreme Court to step in to standardize the usage of handcuffs and introduce guidelines so that these powers do not reach abuses. The case raised questions concerning the way the law dealt with classes of offenders, especially those who were termed habitual offenders or those that offended against societal interests. Observations of the Supreme Court Some notable comments come from the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing regarding the nature of crime and the mode of treatment of persons accused of committing various offenses. The bench made an observation saying that "parasites" in society—those perpetuators or person who commit crimes, or actions that cause serious harm to members of the public—call for different standards when it comes to arrests and handcuffing. It did not exactly state who would fall under the "parasites," but it seemed to distinguish between those who offend without harm and those whose activities are so harmful to society in a severe enough sense. However, it was also determined that not everyone arrested for a crime must be treated alike, and may even necessitate more stringent detention procedures such as handcuffs for serial offenders, or in circumstances in which there is a more serious endangerment to society at large. The right to dignity was therefore balanced with this perspective. No Notice Released Yet Although the Court did not issue a formal notice to the state authorities regarding the change of tack in the handcuff policy under the BNSS, it requested the petitioner to draw out an articulated compilation of best practices on arrest norms and the usage of handcuffs prevalent in different countries. This would help clarify for the Court, in general, how other countries deal with arrest protocols, including the usage of restraints like handcuffs. The Court also stated that such a compilation would go a long way in forming precedents about the future evolution of instructions regarding arrests by law enforcing authorities of India, specifically in regard to the offense committed by non-violent offenders. The Court had been keen to safeguard the interests of effective law enforcement on one hand, protect individual rights on the other and ensure that procedures did not break down human dignity. Implication of the Case Such arrest norms invite important Supreme Court observations on whether such treatment is fair or equitable. While the idea of treating habitual or dangerous offenders differently might appeal to some as a way of upholding public safety, it also stands the risk of creating a framework that might lead to arbitrary and discriminatory practices in the administration of justice. Further, the case raises broader issues of human rights in criminal justice, particularly on the use of force and restraint during an arrest. Human rights advocates have consistently argued that restraint by handcuffing should be used as little as necessary and only to prevent violence or flight, inasmuch as its indiscriminate use leads to degrading and dehumanizing treatment.