With politicians reluctant to give up their vice-like grip on the police, the movement for police reforms will only progress when it is able to draw support from the public as well as from all ranks of the police. This will compel the political class to take corrective action
The directives on police reforms, issued by the Supreme Court in the 2006 Prakash Singh case, marked a watershed in the annals of Indian Police. Mr Singh, a former Director General of Police had filed a public interest litigation in 1996 before the Supreme Court asking for implementation of some of the core recommendations of the National police Commission. It was argued that non-implementation of the recommendations was adversely affecting the criminal justice system. In 2006, the apex court issued clear directives to the Union and State Governments to implement these recommendations to insulate the police from extraneous pulls and pressures.
The seven point directives were as follows. First, a fixed tenure of at least two years for the DGP unless he is promoted or removed on disciplinary grounds. His transfer should not depend on the sweet will of the Chief Minister and the threat of sudden and vindictive transfer will not hang over his head. Second, separation of the law and order wing and the investigation wings of the police. Third, setting up of a Police Establishment Board to decide on promotion, posting and other service-related matters concerning officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendents of Police. Fourth, establishment of a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that police functions in a non-partisan way and the State Government does not exercise undue authority. The SSC is to act as buffer between the police and the State Government. Fifth, setting up of a Police Complaints Authority to look into the misuse of power and authority by the police. The court ordered that PCA should be set up in every district, headed by a retired District Judge, to probe into allegations of serious misconduct by the police.
The 2006 judgement was historic and expected to usher in a new dawn for policing in India. Unfortunately, it proved to be a false dawn. Politicians were determined not to give up their control over the police and adopted dubious stratagems to scupper the reforms. Most State Governments averred that though were in favour of reforms, they had reservations regarding the directives.
Andhra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Nagaland questioned the raison d’être of the State Security Commissions. Some States brazenly claimed that they do not exert any unlawful pressure on the police. Thirteen States have so far enacted new police Acts while others have issued executive orders. But both orders and directives issued by different State Governments dilute, in varying degrees, the spirit, if not the letter of the apex court’s directives. Some states have set up State Security Commissions but packed them up with yes-men and not included the leader of the Opposition.
Disgusted over the evasive and dill-dallying tactics of errant States, the Supreme Court set up a monitoring committee under Justice KT Thomas, a former judge of the Supreme Court. The committee examined the affidavits submitted by different State Governments about compliance with the directives of the apex court, and also the Acts passed by them to find out if they were in keeping with the letter and spirit of the directives of the Supreme Court. The KT Thomas committee also checked the ground realities in respect to implementation of the directives in four states, West Bengal, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. It found that the level of compliance was poor, if not dismal. The committee asked the apex court to pull-up errant State Governments.
In October 2005, the Union Government had set up a committee, commonly known as the Soli Sorabjee Committee, for drafting a model police Act to guide the States in adopting their own legislation. The model Act addressed some of the systemic flaws and also sought to complement the judgement of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Model Act was shelved and ignored. Another key directive of the apex court was setting up PCAs in every State. But most States did not setup PACs on the specious ground that this would adversely affect police functioning.
Unfortunately, the apex court has refrained from compelling the States to implement its directives. Hence even after nearly 20 years of struggle, the end is not in sight. The old order continues. It is also becoming increasingly clear that in the teeth of determined opposition from politicians, the cause of police reforms cannot be advanced by merely relying on court directives. Popular pressure has to be generated for police reforms. The public has to be made aware of the rationale behind police reforms.
The public feels that without a measure of political control, police will turn into a rogue elephant and run amok. It has to be emphasised that the police will never be omnipotent and always remain accountable to the laws of the land. Under the present arrangement police officers enjoy considerable immunity and unaccountability, if they can keep their political masters in good humour. In order to win public support, the police will have to be more honest, transparent and conscientious. Instead of opposing PCAs, police leaders persuade ask State Governments to establish the such mechanisms.
The support of subordinate police staff must also be harnessed for the cause of police reforms. Many police officers in subordinate ranks are unsure if the proposed reforms will enable them to function with dignity. They are not sure if the brass will safeguard their interests. Indeed, the cause of police reforms will continue to suffer setbacks unless senior officers convince their juniors that, by freeing the police system from extraneous pulls and pressures, it will be possible for all of them to function with greater credibility.
The movement for police reforms will gather momentum only when it draws support from the public as well as from all ranks of the police. This will go to compel the political masters to unshackle the police and allow it to function in accordance with the rule of law and not the rule of politics. A neutral, apolitical, and accountable police, will be a powerful instrument of good governance and public welfare.
(The writer is former Director General of National Human Rights Commission and former Director of National Police Academy)