September 22, 2013 marked the beginning of India’s first National Police Reform Week; the date being symbolic of Supreme Court’s historic verdict on the same day in 2006 that ordered binding directives on police reforms to all States.
Seven years since the SC directives, The Pioneer’s investigation reveals that Uttarakhand scores only 1/ 6 in the Police Reform report card. Uttarakhand Government did pass the Uttarakhand Police Act in 2007 but this act flouts most of the orders of the Supreme Court, apparently having been nothing more than a way to escape the SC’s rap. Measured against these directives, Uttarakhand fails gravely.
Directive One: Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to: (i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police (ii) lay down broad policy guideline and (iii) Evaluate the performance of the State police.
It appears that the State Police Board formed as the equivalent of State Security Commission exists only on paper. On being asked about this, Uttarakhand Director General of Police, Satyavrat informed that there had not been even a single meeting of theState Police Board in the last one year that he had taken charge as the DGP.
According to a senior Uttarakhand police officer wishing anonymity, the Board has been constituted only to escape SC reprimand and is not really operative. “No structured meetings have taken place since 2009, no minutes have been drawn. The Board has not served any useful purpose. Even after six years of its establishment, the Board has not given any recommendations to the government on functioning of the police force. The government is not serious about executing police reforms in Uttarakhand.”
It must be noted that the Board could not provide this correspondent any work report on performance evaluation of the police, policy guidelines as mandated by the Supreme Court or minutes of any meeting of the Board.
Directive Two: Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years regardless of superannuation.
As also highlighted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, another big shortcoming relates to ‘arbitrariness in the appointment of the highest ranking police officer, appointments made on considerations of personal preference and posts held at the caprice of the political executive leading to uncertainty of office and tenure.’
As a solution to this problem, the Supreme Court directs that the DGP must be selected from amongst three senior-most officers empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post. The selection would be made on the candidate’s length of service, service record and range of experience.
Once recommended on the basis of transparent objective criteria the Chief Minister would choose from amongst the best of the candidates for a minimum tenure of two years the DGP regardless of superannuation. However, in Uttarakhand, there is no objective process of selection laid out, the UPSC has been left out and the two-year period has been made subject to superannuation.
Directive Three: Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
Arbitrary and frequent transfers taking place at the behest of influential third parties are done as means to punish and reward and outside rational administrative necessities related to policing requirements.
The Supreme Court directions provide for a minimum tenure of two years for SHOs in charge of a police station to ensure security of tenure for police officers on operational duties in the field, allow them to withstand undue political interference and to give them time to properly understand the needs of their jurisdictions and do justice to their jobs. However, section 28 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 has shortened this tenure to one year only.
Directive Four: Separation of investigation from law and order functions of the police. Uttarakhand has turned a blind eye to this vital police necessity. While the Act mentions the separation of the two specific functions, State Government has passed on the buck to DGP without sanctioning necessary manpower. The DGP is unable to ensure separation unless Home Department sanctions augmentation of staff.
When asked as to why additional staff has not been sactioned, Principal Secretary, Home, Om Prakash rejected the notion of separation of Investigation and law & Order Police. “A separate investigation unit will fail in conducting proper inquiry of cases as the real sources of information are with officers enforcing law and order daily. I strongly contend that we must not separate investigation from law and order,’ he said in contravention to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 and SC verdict.
Directive Five: Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It shall also function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers of the rank of SP and above regarding their promotion/ transfer/ disciplinary proceedings or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
On this directive, the State government fails again. In Uttarakhand the PEB does not review functioning of State police not is it authorised to act as a forum of appeal to dispose of representations from police officers on their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
Directive Six: Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police 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 public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of DSP in cases of serious misconduct. Uttarakhand has no provision for district PCA while the State PCA has been rendered powerless since its establishment.