Odisha just has a new DG of Police. His illustrious predecessor, who proceeded on leave around two months before his retirement, may soon find him in some other assignment. At this stage, a few words about commitment of the State Government to police reforms need to be said.
The National Police Commission was appointed in 1977 with wide terms of reference covering the police organisation, its role, functions, accountability, relations with the public, political interference in its work, misuse of powers, evaluation of its performance, etc. Its eight reports between 1979 and 1981 suggested wide ranging reforms in the existing police setup.
A committee set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs in September, 2005 submitted a draft Model Police Act on October 30, 2006. We learn from the written reply of the Minister of State for Home Affairs Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary to a question by Kiranmay Nanda in the Rajya Sabha on July 22, 2015 that so far 15 States Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttarakhand have formulated their State Police Acts and two States, Gujarat and Karnataka, have amended their existing Police Acts. Thus, a total of 17 State Governments have either formulated their State Police Acts or amended the existing ones.
The Model Act emphasised the need for a professional police service in a democratic society, which is efficient, effective, responsive to the needs of the people and accountable to the Rule of law. It emphasises that the police would be governed by the principles of impartiality and human rights norms, with special attention to protection of weaker sections including minorities. It suggested creation of a State Police Board to frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, responsive and accountable policing, etc. The model Act provided that the Director General of Police shall be appointed from amongst three senior-most officers of the State police service, empanelled for the rank. The empanelment shall be done by the State Police Board, considering criteria including:— (a) length of service and fitness of health, standards as prescribed by the State Government; (b) assessment of the performance appraisal reports of the previous 15 years of service; (c) range of relevant experience, including experience of work in Central police organisations, and training courses undergone; (d) indictment in any criminal or disciplinary proceedings or on the counts of corruption or moral turpitude; or charges having been framed by a court of law in such cases.
Now, let us have a look at what the Orissa High Court observed in the Prakash Mishra case. Justice SC Parija in his judgement dated the 19th June, 2015 stated, “From the facts detailed above, there is no manner of doubt that the Vigilance authorities have proceeded in the matter with a predetermined agenda to implicate the petitioners, more specifically, the writ petitioner Prakash Mishra, irrespective of whether any material is available to substantiate the allegations. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the preliminary enquiry in a most perfunctory manner, in brazen disregard of all established norms of justice and fair play. The manner in which the preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the method adopted by the Enquiry Officer in concluding the enquiry post haste, without even verifying the relevant documents and examining any witness, clearly goes to show that he was bent upon implicating the petitioners and thereby facilitate registration of the FIR against them. Hence, the entire action of the Vigilance authorities smacks of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power with the oblique motive to harass the petitioners and damage their reputation.”
The High Court also observed, “It is not very uncommon in our country that honest and upright public servants with unimpeachable integrity and having impeccable track record are often hounded by the ruling political establishment for extraneous consideration. In the present case, what is more disturbing is that the Director, Vigilance, to whom the file was marked by the Chief Minister for conducting an enquiry, has abdicated his duty and responsibility by displaying studied indifference and allowing the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, to deal with the matter and entrust the enquiry to an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in spite of the fact that the enquiry was being conducted against the writ petitioner, who was the former DGP of the State and is one of the senior most IPS officers of repute in the country, presently posted as Director General, CRPF, New Delhi. The action or rather the willful inaction of the Director, Vigilance, in not ensuring free, fair and proper enquiry into the matter and allowing the report of a sham enquiry to be accepted and giving his consent for seeking approval of the State Government for registration of criminal case against the petitioners clearly shows that he was more concerned in exhibiting his loyalty to the ruling political establishment, akin to the old British adage of “more loyal than the King”. Many could view such actions contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals that the phrase “moral turpitude” used in criminal law comprises.
The State Government moved the Supreme Court for relief against the Judgement of the High Court .The special leave petitions were dismissed. Though the adverse remarks of the High Court stand, the Director, Vigilance, adversely commented upon, has been installed as the DG of Police.
The National Police Commission had envisioned the police to render impartial service to law without any heed to wishes, indications or desires expressed by the Government which either come in conflict with or do not conform to the provisions contained in the Constitution or laws.
According to the commission, the manner in which political control has been exercised over the police in this country has led to gross abuses, resulting in erosion of rule of law and loss of police credibility as a professional organisation. The threat of transfer/suspension is the most potent weapon in the hands of the politician to bend the police down to his will. The commission recommended that the superintendence of the State Government over the police should be limited to ensure that police performance was in strict accordance with law. In the performance of its tasks, the commission was of the view that police should be subject to overall guidance from the Government, which should lay down broad policies for adoption in different situations; there should, however, be no instructions in regard to actual operations in the field. In regard to investigation work, in any case, the police are beyond any intervention by the executive or politicians.
The Prakash Mishra judgement stands out as a vivid testimony of the mindset of Odisha’s prevailing political leadership towards the police. The aberrations in India’s police noted by the National Police Commission in 1777-81 seem still in vogue in Odisha in 2014-15. A professional police is like an exotic flower that never bloomed in a feudal setup. It is for the civil society to think how fragile Rule of law is where leadership is feudal in spirit. It needs to seek justice from the judiciary. Prakash Mishra has shown the way.
(The writer is a former IAS officer of Odisha cadre)