It has been a decade and a half since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Prakash Singh Vs Union of India case regarding police reforms was delivered. The petitioner who served as the DG of UP Police and Assam Police had sought police reforms by filing a PIL in the court post his retirement in 1996. The apex court, in its judgment on September 22, 2006, directed all States and Union Territories to bring in police reforms, wherein an array of measures were prescribed to be undertaken by the Governments so as to ensure that the police can function without any political interference.
There were seven major directives from the court which included fixing of the tenure and selection of the DGP, setting up of State Police Complaints Authorities (SPCAs) to enable common people aggrieved by police action to vent their grievances, setting up of State Security Commissions (SSCs) having members from the civil society and forming a National Security Commission. Apart from this, a minimum tenure was sought for the officers of the rank Inspector General of Police so as to avoid political interference and it was also directed to do the postings of officers by Police Establishment Boards (PEBs) constituted with police officers and senior bureaucrats, ensuring insulation of power of transfer and posting from political elements and to have separation of investigation and law and order functions in order to improve policing.
Consequent upon the court’s verdict on police reforms, a Police Act Drafting Committee headed by former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs which came out with a Model Police Act, 2006. However, the Centre has so far overlooked passage of a Model Police Act or at least passage of such legislation for consenting the States according to the provisions under Article 252 of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, there has been almost ‘lack of’ or ‘no’ interest expressed by the Central Government or the State Governments to bring in such uniformity in police reforms as per the court’s direction. In the absence of a Central directive or Model Police Act being passed by the Centre, different police Acts are being passed by different States, which is a blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s directive. But the paradox lies in the fact that each of such States has legislated in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms, but the variations are deep and mostly based on political suitability and to give legislative cover to the existing system and escape from the judicial directions.
On the contrary, it was expected that the States have to legislate the police Acts mutatis mutandis and not verbatim having consideration of the local factors, retaining the regional characteristics and features of the State.
Interestingly, in the meantime, a contempt petition against such States was filed by eminent lawyer Harish Salve for such violations which is yet to be disposed of by the court. The result is such that the very essence of the Model Police Act drafted by following the principles enshrined in the Supreme Court directives in the Prakash Sing case have summarily failed and there is unabated political interference in policing by political executives in most of the States that have purportedly passed the police Acts in compliance to the direction of the Supreme Court.
For example, according to reports, in some States, many senior officers, who have been part of the PEB committee are ‘unofficially’ informed by the Government about its preference of officers as regards particular posts. And even if two or three officers may not, but a majority of the officers fall in line with the Government. This is to say the police Acts enacted by the State Governments are a mere eyewash in the name of police reforms while fact remains these are made just to maintain status quo while effectively circumventing the court’s direction.
And this lack of political will regarding proper implementation of the police reforms has raised serious issues of concern regarding policing and administration like the Mumbai Police Commissioner accusing the Maharashtra Home Minister of resorting to extortion through police.
The police inaction in West Bengal in containing and curbing the post-poll violence present a very grim story of the sorry state of affairs as regards achieving the milestone of police reforms in India.Here, it is prudent to go an extra mile in drawing exception to the model of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution so as to enforce judicial observations and directions in policy matters that involve greater national interest like police reforms.
And this avenue should be further explored and embarked upon even if it means to see the distribution of powers enshrined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution through a new progressive prism of development through cooperation and consensus.
(The writer is a lawyer and public policy expert and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law and Media Studies, School of Mass Communication, KIIT University. He can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com)