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 The Commission recommended a Model Police Act to replace the outdated Police Act, 1861.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.