POLICE REFORMS IN INDIA

 The National Police Commission was set up in 1979 to suggest measures on police reforms. The Commission recommended a Model Police Act to replace the outdated Police Act, 1861. However, none of the recommendations was implemented. On a writ petition filed in 1996 by Prakash Singh, former Director-General of the Border Security Force (see accompanying story and graphic), the Supreme Court on September 22, 2006, issued comprehensive directions.

They include: 1)The Director-General of Police should be selected by the States from among the three senior-most officers on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience. 2)Police officers on operational duties like the Inspector-General of Police in charge of a zone, Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of a range, Superintendent of Police in charge of a district and Station House Officer in charge of a police station should have a minimum tenure of two years. 3)The Centre and the States were to set up Security Commissions for selection and appointment of personnel and ensure complete autonomy in police administration.

The investigating police should be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. There should be a Police Establishment Board in each State to decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of officers. A District Level Police Complaints Authority headed by a retired district judge will look into complaints against officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police .

You will be told that more than 90 per cent of the NPC recommendations have been implemented. What you will not be told is that three of the most crucial ones are yet to see the light of day. The first of these relates to the setting up of a State Security Commission that will not only evaluate the performance of the police but also entertain representations from officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above against being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. Such a Commission - headed by the Minister in charge of the police and in which one of the six members will be from the Opposition in the legislature - could greatly reduce the frequency of wrongful and unethical directions to officers, either by the police leadership or by the political executive. The second is choosing the Director-General of Police of a State through a clinical process and conferring on him a mandatory tenure of four years. Finally, the NPC recommended the replacement of the Police Act, 1861, with a new Act that takes care of the current times when we need a swift-acting police that is not hampered by an obstructive Executive Magistrate, especially during major law and order situations. The NPC actually went to the extent of drafting a model Police Act, which plugged several lacunae in the old Act and submitted it for government acceptance. The mandarins in North Block have been dragging their feet over this since 1981, obviously because the new Act makes the police mostly free from the Executive Magistrate and the political executive.

While the first two recommendations need action by State Chief Ministers, in respect of the third, both Parliament and the State legislatures are competent to bring forward a Bill that could become the new Police Act applicable to the whole country.

In a landmark 2006 verdict, the Supreme Court came out with its now famous seven steps to police reforms. Insulation of the force from illegitimate political interference, transparency in the appointment of the DGP, separation of the law and order and investigative functions and the establishment of a complaints authority are the more important among them. They still remain on paper. Most of these recommendations have been the sum and substance of the eight reports of the National Police Commissions constituted by successive governments over the years. They were further reiterated by two committees set up in the 1990s on police reforms and embodied in the Model Police Act proposed to replace the colonial law of 1861.

The Police Act of 1861 still guides and governs our police system. The colonial mindset of the police, the distrust people had for the police in British India has continued to date.

So far we have seen either foolish reforms or no reforms in making the police relevant in modern democratic and highly insecure world.

Police is an exclusive subject under the State List ( List II, Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution)

States can enact any law regarding the subject of police. But most of the states are following the archaic Indian Police Act 1861 with few modifications. Police have become the ‘subjects’ of Parliamentarians and legislators – with high degree ofpoliticization and allegiance towards ruling party.

Starting from the second Police Commission in 1902 headed by A.H.L. Fraser, there have been many commissions and committees formed to look into reforming the police in India.

Prominent among them are: 

·        Gore Committee on Police Training

·        National Police Commission

·        The Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms

·        The Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms 

·         Prakash Singh Vs Union of India – SC directives for Police Reforms

·        Soli Sorabjee Committee.

The 22 September, 2006 verdict of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India case was the landmark in the fight for police reforms in India. Unfortunately, even the directions of SC have not been implemented by the states.

Courting the Court

In 2006 the SC gave 7 binding directions to the states and Union Territories. The court ordered the states and UTs to implement the directions immediately either through legislation or executive order. But, the police – politician nexus is so much deep-rooted that states are reluctant to implement any of the directions. Last year (November 2010), the SC asked for the personal presence of Chief Secretaries of 4 major states(Karnataka, WB, Maharashtra and  UP) to learn the progress and give stern directions.

ARTICLE 21: FUNDAMENTAL TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ENHANCED VIEW

''No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.''

1- Post-1980, the Supreme Court has virtually been on an overdrive to maintain the sanctity of right to life guaranteed to all — citizens and foreigners — under Article 21 of the Constitution.

If in 1978, in Maneka Gandhi case, it ruled that the expression ''life'' did not mean mere animal existence but with dignity, it added another legal leaf in 2008 in Deepak Bajaj case, when it said right to life encompassed a person's reputation as well.

This new meaning of Article 21 helped the court in subsequent years-

1-      to give relief to prisoners

2-It asked the government to clean up Ganga and Yamuna as it read right to clean drinking water a part of right to life

It banned child labour, for it found that this stunted right to life

It ordered closure of polluting industries as it saw the noxious fumes stifling citizen's right to clean air and environment, which again was included within the ambit of right to life.

A whole new catena of rights was read into Article 21, which embodies the right to life and liberty. These, in various decisions, have been held to

include the right to legal aid, right to go abroad, right to reputation, right to shelter, right to privacy, right against sexual harassment of women, right to education and right to clean and healthy environment.''

The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.[8] and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and some of them are listed below:

(1) The right to go abroad.

(2) The right to privacy.

(3) The right against solitary confinement.

(4) The right against hand cuffing.

(5) The right against delayed execution.

(6) The right to shelter.

(7) The right against custodial death.

(8) The right against public hanging.

(9) Doctors assistance.

It was observed in Unni Krishnan’s case that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life.Through various Judgments the Apex Court also included many of the non-justifiable Directive Principles embodied under part IV of the Constitution and some of the examples are as under:

(a) Right to pollution free water and air

.(b)Protection of under-trial.

(c)Right to every child to a full development.

(d) Protection of cultural heritage.

INDO- IRAN RELATIONSHIP AND ITS GEOPOLITICAL RESONANCE

Transitioning Iran’s role from a major oil supplier to an anchor of India’s energy security

Chabahar port project — a move that would reinforce New Delhi’s strategic ties with Tehran and Kabul ahead of next year’s withdrawal from Afghanistan by the United States.

The Chabahar port project is one such area which reflects india’s commitment to the stability and peace in Afghanistan.

Analysts points out that  India’s participation “in the upgradation” of Chabahar port has deep geopolitical resonance.

The full development of the Chabahar port would lower landlocked Afghanistan’s dependence on Pakistani ports for assured access to the sea.

 The trilateral arrangement could balance joint forays by China and Pakistan in the Indian Ocean.

It is to note here that In February, Pakistan decided that China would operate its Gwadar port, just 76 km from Chabahar.

Gwadar would provide Chinese ships sustained anchorage in an area on the edge of the Arabian Sea, not far from the Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of the world’s energy supplies pass.

Observers say the development of Gwadar may have imparted some urgency to India’s decision to go ahead with the Chabahar project.

Chabahar’s commercial advantages reinforce the importance of its strategic location. Iran was looking for Indian investments in the Chabahar Free Trade and Industrial Zone — an area of around 140 sq km that is carved into nine functional zones

Indian and Iranian officials brainstormed the possibility of establishing a 12-lakh-tonne urea plant in Chabahar, taking advantage of the availability of Iran’s exceptionally cheap natural gas.

India is considering investments in several other projects to boost India-Iran-Afghanistan ties.-

1. sources said India was exploring investments in the Chabahar container terminal project and in the proposed Chabahar-Faraj-Bam railway                                          
2.  Once this railroad is complete, containers can be speedily sent to Bam, on the Afghan border. Then onward journey can commence along the 200-km India-built Zaranj-Delaram road that hooks up with Afghanistan’s garland highway, linking all major cities.

1.  the off-shore Farzad B project where Indian companies could acquire oil under a lucrative production sharing agreement

4. merits of expanding India’s role in Iran’s food security basket.

SUPREME COURT'S ARGUMENTS ON KUDANKULAM DISPUTE.......

SUPREME COURT while clearing the KUDANKULAM NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT gave following arguments –Benefits’ outweigh ‘minor radiological detriments,’ says SC

We have to balance ‘economic scientific benefits’ with that of ‘minor radiological detriments’ on the touchstone of our national nuclear policy

                                                                     

Economic benefit has to be viewed on a larger canvas which not only augments our economic growth but alleviates poverty and generates more employment

NPCIL, while setting up the NPP at Kudankulam, have satisfied the environmental principle.”

The environmental principles such as sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.

It is  part of a national policy to develop, control and use atomic energy for the welfare of the people and for economic growth.

“larger public interest of the community should give way to individual apprehension of violation of human rights and right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

The benefits we reap from KKNPP are enormous since nuclear energy remains an important element in India’s energy mix which can replace a significant part of fossil fuels like coal, gas oil etc.”India has a mammoth population unlike developed countries, and the consumption of electricity was growing.

 “To sustain rapid economic growth, it is necessary to double the supply of energy. Energy tariff is also increasing, and nuclear power in the long run will be much cheaper than other forms of energy.”The Bench added: “[Kudankulam] Nuclear power plant is being established not to negate the right to life but to protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”  

However, made it clear that the plant should not be made operational unless the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) gave their final clearances.