FROM RULER'S POLICE TO PEOPLE'S POLICE

PRAKASH SINGH*

 

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment on September 22, demolished in one stroke the colonial police structure which was hanging like a millstone around our necks for nearly 145 years. The Police Act of 1861, it may be recalled, was designed by the British to raise a police force which would be "politically useful". The Revolt of 1857 had shaken the foundations of the British Rule in India. It was, therefore, felt that they must have a police which would uphold the interests of the imperial power and carry out its dictates, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful.

At the dawn of independence, the political masters should have restructured the police and made it accountable to the people. The transformation was unfortunately not carried out. As years passed, every successive government found it convenient to use, misuse and abuse the police for its partisan political ends. In 1977, the government appointed the National Police Commission as it felt that "far reaching changes have taken place in the country" since independence but "there has been no comprehensive review of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country". The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979-81 containing comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. The Central Government, however, gave a cosmetic treatment only to the Committee's recommendations.

It was against this background that a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court in 1996 with the objective essentially to free the police from the stranglehold of politicians and make it accountable to the laws of the land and the constitution of the country. It is significant that while the PIL was progressing in the Supreme Court, three Committees were appointed by the government at different periods of time to deliberate over the question of police reforms: the Ribeiro Committee in 1998, the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and the Malimath Committee on the Criminal Justice System in 2002. All the aforesaid Committees broadly came to the same conclusions and emphasized the urgent need for police reforms in the context of newly emerging challenges. However, the much needed reforms were never carried out because of the combined opposition of the political parties.

The dilemma before the Supreme Court was whether it should wait further for the governments to take suitable steps for police reforms or seize the initiative and issue binding directives to the governments for reforming the police. The Court chose the latter option, spelling out its reasons in the following words "having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem; (ii) the urgent need for preservation and strengthening of Rule of Law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv) the fact that various Commissions and Committees have made recommendations on similar lines for introducing reforms in the police set up in the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced, we think that there cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come for issue of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be operative till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by the Central Government and/or the State Governments pass the requisite legislations".

The Supreme Court ordered the setting up of three institutions at the state level with a view to insulating the police from extraneous influences, giving it functional autonomy and ensuring its accountability. These institutions are the State Security Commission, which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the//2// preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police; the Police Establishment Board, which would comprise the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department and decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police; and a Police Complaints Authority at the level of the state and of the districts for inquiring into allegations of misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the Apex Court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission, and that he shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. The Chief Minister would now not be able to just say `talaq' and throw out the DGP Police officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General in charge Zone, Deputy Inspector General in charge Zone, Superintendent of Police in charge District and Station House Officer in charge Police Station would also have a minimum tenure of two years. Transfers have become an industry in the states. Every time that there is a change of regime, officers are moved en masse. Such administrative reshuffles on political grounds should henceforth become a thing of the past. The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government has also been 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 its personnel.

The Supreme Court orders are going to have very far reaching implications. They should change the working philosophy of the police, which should in future reflect the democratic aspirations of the people. As the new arrangements are put in place, we should see a people-friendly police gradually emerging from the shadows.

The transition is however not going to be smooth. Vested interests, whose power to manipulate and abuse the police, has been taken away, would throw every spanner in the scheme and try to scuttle it. Some states, notably Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, have adopted a defiant posture. Some other states have done only notional compliance of the Supreme Court directives. The states which provide a silver lining are: Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur, Sikkim, Goa, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand; these states have complied with the judicial directives.

The present generation of police officers will also have to rise to the occasion and fulfill the expectations of the people. They will have to deliver and show that the Force is now a Service and that what was Ruler's Police is now a People's Police.

*Mr. Prakash Singh, former Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and former Director General Border Security Force, has been a crusader for police reforms. He and Common Cause were co-petitioners in the landmark case Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No. 310 of 96.

July - November 2007