Sample Material of Current Public Administration Magazine

Police Administration

Police Reforms Still Remains on Paper

Though seven years have passed since the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, most of the States have not complied with many of its directions to bring about police reforms.

Some States enacted laws and implemented the directions in part, prompting the court early this year to once again remind all of them of the need for compliance. The matter is still pending.

Main objectives

In its September 22, 2006 verdict in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case, the court sought to achieve two main objectives: functional autonomy for the police through security of tenure, streamlined appointment and transfer processes and creation of a “buffer body” between the police and the government; and enhanced police accountability, both for organisational performance and individual misconduct.

1. The seven directions were:

a) Constitute a State Security Commission to ensure that the State government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police;
b) Lay down broad policy guidelines and c) evaluate the performance of the State police.

2. Ensure that the DGP is appointed through a merit-based, transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.

3. Ensure that other officers on operational duties (including SPs and Station House officers) are also provided a minimum two-year tenure.

4. Separate investigation, and law and order functions.

5. Set up a Police Establishment Board to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of DSP.

6. Set up a Police Complaints Authority at the State level to inquire into public complaints against officers of and above the rank of DSP in cases of serious misconduct including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody, and at district levels to inquire into complaints against personnel below the rank of DSP in cases of serious misconduct.

7. Set up a National Security Commission at the Union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the central police organisations with a minimum tenure of two years.

The former Border Security Force (BSF) Director-General, Prakash Singh, refers to his favourite game of ping pong whenever he has to explain the failure of the Indian political establishment to carry out much-needed reforms to establish a professional police force.

“The Union and State governments have been making clever attempts to legitimise the status quo by just passing the buck when it comes to implementing the landmark Supreme Court judgment of 2006 on police reforms,” says Mr. Singh, who has also served as police chief of Uttar Pradesh and Assam.

It was his decade-long battle, along with the efforts of some civil society groups, that led to the Supreme Court ordering a complete overhaul of the policing system. And since then, he has been campaigning hard to ensure that the court’s directions are implemented in “ letter and spirit.”

Behind the rot is the Police Act of 1861 legislated by the British after the Indian Mutiny of 1857 to impose a police force upon their subjects, which could be used solely to consolidate and perpetuate their rule, says Mr. Singh.

It has been over a century since the need for reforms was initially felt. The first Indian Police Commission of 1902-03 found that “the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition; that abuses are common everywhere; that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government; and that radical reforms are urgently necessary.”

“Several commissions and committees have strongly recommended major changes… but the political executive continues to retain its stranglehold on the police. Every successive government finds it convenient to use, misuse and abuse the police for its partisan political ends,” Mr. Singh says.

Significantly, three of the seven key Supreme Court directions in the case were — the States were to establish ‘State Security Commission’ (to insulate the police from political pressure), ‘Police Establishment Board’ (to give autonomy in personnel matters), and ‘Police Complaints Authority’ (to look into complaints of police misconduct).

Dismal scenario

A compliance report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) paints a dismal picture. It says that though most States have set up the ‘State Security Commission,’ they do not reflect the court’s criteria with regard to composition, function and powers. Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa and Tamil Nadu have not complied with this directive.

Only Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Meghalaya are in full compliance with all the criteria laid down by the court for ‘Police Establishment Board,’ while Bihar has been non-compliant.

Ironically, no State government has established ‘Police Complaints Authorities’ at district and State levels that fully comply with the court orders. A significant minority — Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh — have completely ignored the directive.

Another peculiar case is that of the Model Police Bill, prepared in 2006 by the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) of the Union Home Ministry, which complements the court’s judgment. The Ministry, which controls the Delhi Police, was to enact the “Model Act” in the National Capital so that it could be implemented by other States (as law and order in a state subject), but the file has been shuttling between North Block and the Delhi government.

Noting that so far only 12 States have enacted their own versions of the new Police Act, CHRI’s Coordinator (Police Reforms Programme) Navaz Kotwal observes: “A cursory look at the recent laws shows that most of these new pieces of legislation are as regressive as — if not more than — the archaic laws that they replaced. New laws are being drafted in complete secrecy by a small lobby of police officers and bureaucrats without involving the public. They give statutory sanction to all the bad practices that existed. Worryingly, these Acts tend to reduce or dilute accountability.”

“The whole system — from recruitment to training, to performance and promotions, to transfers, appointments accountability — has got so eroded and rotten that a complete makeover is needed,” she says
The former Union Home Secretary, G.K. Pillai, says: “Today, less than 30 per cent of those recruited in police have got in through merit. It affects the functioning of the system and is the first source of corruption. The first and foremost is to ensure that those who are recruited come by a transparent merit-based system to ensure that they are not beholden to influence peddlers and have not bribed to get in.”

He further says politicians and political parties feel that the police are an instrument in their hands to further their interests. “The objectives have to change — from being a force responsive to the powers that be to the upholder of the law and human rights; and the feeling that the police are there for the average citizen.”

In a city where almost everyone feels unsafe, as much from miscreants as from the police, wall-to-wall media coverage of the brutal gang rape in a bus has obliged the men in uniform to give an account of what has been done to improve women’s safety.

Defending the general performance of his force, the Commissioner explained that they have been collaborating with women NGOs to inculcate gender sensitivity in the rank and file. To improve policing in general, he said the Union Territory had taken steps to obey the Supreme Court and had set up a police complaints authority, a Security Commission and separated the law and order and investigation wings.

All true. Yet, also not so true. It is only recently, six years after the judgement in the Prakash Singh case that Delhi has taken baby steps and they are by no means in the right direction. The police complaints authority — a body that would look at serious complaints against the police, is currently functioning out of the overburdened Delhi Public Grievances Commission. The Security Commission has met once since it was set up. Headed by the Lt. Governor and with the Delhi Chief Minister as a member, the commission meets quarterly to review the law and order and security situation in the capital.

A new draft Delhi Police bill intended to reform policing lies in the LG’s office for over two years. The Bill removes the safeguards of independence and accountability explicitly drawn up by the Supreme Court. It gives new powers to the police but lowers accountability standards. Reform, however, doesn’t need new laws or more powers. What it needs is a fundamentally new way for the Police to think about itself.

The Supreme Court judgement provided this opportunity. It set up a whole new scheme of operational responsibility and accountability. Within the court’s schema the Security Commission was meant to draw up a strategic policing plan for a five year period, identifying key priorities and objectives, and chalking out an action plan. These strategic plans were to be prepared after receiving inputs for each district from the district police chief who in turn would formulate them after consultation with the community. These plans were to be submitted to the legislature and made available in the public domain for wider consultations with civil society.

The policy role for Security Commissions is crucial for government to effectively monitor performance.

If the Commission in Delhi had taken its role seriously, probably there would have been a vision of policing that would have been widely discussed. Objective criteria to measure police performance would have been available. Instead, the Commission has met just once and the proceedings on public safety are kept confidential. In the absence of a holistic vision, patchwork solutions find their way into the system in the form of ad hoc gender sensitisation or poorly developed standard operating procedures.

Everyone knows what is wrong with policing. Everyone knows the cure. Some of the cure was given importance due to the Court’s judgement. The creation of Security Commissions was perhaps the keystone of that remedy. But instead of a welcome, it has encountered only defiance, resistance and distortion. If our streets are to be safe for women, change in the police system is a priority.

(Source- The Hindu, Daily newspaper)

Get this magazine (Current Public Administration) free if you purchase our any of the below courses:

Public Administration Online Coaching / Study Kit

<< Go Back to Main Page