Though 12 years have elapsed since the September 22, 2006, apex court verdict on police reforms, little headway has been made. The police force is more politicised and criminalised than ever before
~By Prakash Singh
“The police force is far from efficient, it is defective in training and organisation, 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.”
The above observations were recorded by the Fraser Commission (1902-03) 115 years back! Time seems to have stood still for the police. The observations are as true for the police today as they were in the early 20th century.
It may sound shocking, but the fact is that things have, in fact, deteriorated further. Two developments—both very unfortunate—have contributed to the police becoming even more “corrupt and oppressive” than during Lord Curzon’s time.
These are: politicisation and criminalisation of the force.
Today, large sections of the police are politically aligned to one group or the other. Most of the policemen have a political godfather to whom they go for favours in postings and transfers. There is obviously a quid pro quo in the process. A small percentage of policemen has even developed criminal tendencies and is found involved in undesirable, unlawful activities. And so, today, we have a police force which, in terms of character, is inferior to what we had more than 100 years back.
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
A National Police Commission was appointed in 1977 as it was felt that “far- reaching changes have taken place in the country”, but “there has been no comprehensive review at the national level of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country”. The Commission submitted eight detailed reports between 1979 and 1981 which contained comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police work. However, the recommendations got no more than cosmetic treatment at the hands of the government.
The effort to bring about reforms in the police received a fresh impetus when a PIL was filed in 1996, Prakash Singh and others v Union of India and others. The Supreme Court, in a historic verdict on September 22, 2006, issued six directions to the state governments and one to the Union government. The state governments were asked to set up three institutions:
State Security Commission—which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service-oriented functions of the police
Police Establishment Board—which gave a fair measure of autonomy to police officers in personnel matters
Police Complaints Authority—at district and state levels with the objective of inquiring into allegations of serious misconduct by police personnel.
Besides, the apex court ordered that the director general of police (DGP) shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC, and that he shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the IG Zone, DIG Range, SP i/c District and SHO i/c Police Station would also have a minimum tenure of two years.
The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. The Union government was asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of central police organisations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions of their personnel.
POOR IMPLEMENTATION
The aforesaid directions were to be implemented by March 31, 2007. Some state governments—17 so far—taking advantage of the fact that the directions were “for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations”, have passed acts which seek to legitimise the status quo and circumvent the implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions. The remaining states have passed executive orders which actually dilute, amend or modify the apex court’s directions.
The Justice Thomas Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of the Court’s directions in various states, in its report (2010) expressed “dismay over the total indifference” of the state governments on the issue of reforms in police.
The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines on the appointment of DGPs recently on July 3. The states were directed to send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the UPSC at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent and it was laid down that the UPSC shall prepare the panel as per directions of this Court in the Prakash Singh case, and that thereafter the state shall appoint one of the officers from the panel to the post of DGP. It was specifically stated that none of the states shall appoint any officer to the post of DGP on an acting basis.
The guidelines, however, continue to be violated. The chief minister of Punjab has taken the stand that these guidelines were “an infringement” on the rights of the state, and that he would seek a review of the order to “preserve the spirit of federalism”.
What is at stake is not only the vitality and credibility of the police but the very survival of the democratic structure and the momentum of economic progress. The legislatures and Parliament have been infiltrated by persons of questionable antecedent. The nexus between politicians and criminals is undermining the authority of the State. Mechanisms must be devised to safeguard the police from becoming a tool in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.
The economic growth of the country also requires comprehensive improvement in the law and order situation. We have seen the devastation in Haryana during the reservation agitation in February 2016, when property worth about Rs 20,000 crore was destroyed by the agitators. No corporate group would make investments in a state where its installations are vulnerable to attacks by hoodlums. A politicised force cannot deal with such situations effectively. What we need is a professional police force.
SECURITY NEEDS
The internal security situation of the country is quite fragile. We have a strong separatist movement in J&K. There are insurgencies in the North east and a Maoist insurrection in central India. Terrorist modules are present in different parts of the country. Besides, there are caste conflicts and communal problems. Border security is a huge problem, now that the entire coastline has also to be secured. Only a progressive, modern police can effectively deal with these challenges.
Police reforms are absolutely essential if India is to emerge as a progressive modern country. There is no getting away from this hard reality. We must have a reorganised, restructured, rejuvenated and reformed police. The stakes are very high. The internal security challenges, political stability and economic progress of the country are all linked with a transformed police.
—The writer, a Padmashri awardee, was Director General of Police, UP; DGP, Assam; and D-G, Border Security Force