Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity and Governance)
Introduction
As far back as 1902-03, the Fraser Commission recorded that “the police force is far from efficient, it is defective in training and organization, it is inadequately supervised, it is generally regarded as corrupt and oppressive, and it has utterly failed to secure the confidence and cordial cooperation of the people.” Tragically, the observations are as true even today – after a lapse of 115 years! Time seems to have stood still for the Indian police.
Futile efforts made towards police reforms
- State Commissions were appointed by the governments of Kerala (1959), Bengal (1960), Punjab (1961), Maharashtra (1964), Madhya Pradesh (1964), Uttar Pradesh (1970), Assam (1971) and Tamil Nadu (1971), but unfortunately the core recommendation of these commissions to insulate the police from extraneous pressures was not implemented by any state government.
- In 1977, the Centre appointed a National Police Commission (NPC). The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979-81 which contained comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. Its recommendations, however, received no more than cosmetic treatment at the hands of the Indian government.
- The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment on police reforms in, 2006. Today, twelve years down the line, the apex court’s directions have yet to be implemented in letter and spirit.
The Supreme Court judgement
- The Supreme Court gave seven comprehensive directions out of which six were for state governments and one for the central government.
- The states were asked to set up three institutions:
- State Security Commission to insulate the police from extraneous pressures,
- Police Establishment Board to give autonomy to police officers in personnel matters,
- Police Complaints Authority to ensure greater accountability of policemen.
- Besides, the procedure was prescribed for selection of DGP which would ensure that only the best officer was chosen and he, along with other officers performing operational assignments, was given a minimum tenure of two years.
- The states were also asked to separate investigation from law and order work to improve the quality of investigations.
- The Union government was asked to set up a National Security Commission.
How far the Court’s directions have been implemented?
- Seventeen states have passed Acts purportedly in compliance of the court’s directions but essentially to circumvent them.
- The remaining states have passed executive orders which are in violation of the judicial directions.
- Even where the mandated institutions – State Security Commission, Police Establishment Board and Complaints Authority – have been set up, their composition has been subverted, their charter diluted or their powers curtailed.
- There is arbitrariness in the appointment of DGP, and police officers on operational assignments are shunted out for various administrative reasons before the completion of two years.
- There is tardiness in the separation of investigative and law and order functions of the police.
- Justice Thomas Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of directions in various states, in its report (2010) expressed “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of police being exhibited by the states.”
- Justice JS Verma Committee, which was constituted in the wake of the brutal gang rape in Delhi on December 16, 2012, urged “all states to fully comply with all six Supreme Court directives in order to tackle systemic problems in policing which exist today.” The states remain adamant.
Why Supreme directions are not being followed?
- The colonial structure suits the political class because it enables them to use, misuse and abuse the police in a partisan manner.
- The bureaucracy has become addicted to hegemonistic control over the police and is not prepared to let that control be diluted in any manner.
- Politician-bureaucrat combination is the most powerful in India. It is capable of frustrating any plan or scheme. And so, efforts to reform the police are making very slow progress.
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dream of a SMART police – sensitive, mobile, accountable, responsive and techno-savvy – remains unrealized, thanks to the indifference of the state governments and the absence of any push from the Union home ministry
Why police reform are necessary ?
- Reforms in the police are directly linked with economic progress and political stability in the country.
- No one would like to invest in a state or country where law and order is fragile.
- The increasing number of persons of questionable background entering the legislatures and Parliament is a dangerous trend which may one day lead to the death of democracy in the country. The police are not able to deal with these elements effectively and are, on the other hand, subjected to the indignity of having to protect them.
Conclusion
Police reforms, it needs to be emphasized, are not to cover the police with glory. They are to give better security and protection to the people of the country, uphold rule of law and improve governance. What we have today is Rulers’ Police, what we need to and must have is People’s Police.
