DO WE DESERVE THE POLICE WE HAVE?

Taking Stock On Police Reforms Day September 22.

                   Our literature and films are a reflection of the esteem, or the lack of it, that our police enjoy in the eyes of the citizen. Often we find the police depicted as corrupt and cruel, or there are bumbling buffoons in uniform in many movies, and the viewer has a good laugh when these morons go from one imbecile act to another. It seems that the real message is forgotten immediately thereafter. We tend to take these things easy, make a lot of noise when something goes wrong with us, only to go back to an insomniac slumber again. The constructive action will be to examine why we have such gap between the expectation and delivery when it comes to the police in our country and what it is that we need to do to improve matters.

                   Close to a decade back, the Apex Court issued some very important and long-awaited directions to governments in the States and at the Centre to bring about much needed reforms in the way that the police in India functioned. It was in response to a petition moved by legendary IPS officer Mr Prakash Singh and others before the Supreme Court of India in the year 1996. The Petition argued that “the executive authorities, at the political and bureaucratic levels, are not taking—and are not likely to take—any initiative to restructure the police department and introduce such reforms as would make it truly an instrument of service to the law and to the people”, and therefore urged upon the court “to direct the executive authorities of the Central and state governments to introduce such reforms as are essential to make the police, in letter and in spirit, accountable to the law of the land and the people of the country”. It was emphasised in the Petition that “the present distortions and aberrations in the functioning of the police have their roots in the colonial past and the complete subordination of the police to the executive—an arrangement which was designed originally to protect the interests of the British Raj but which unfortunately continues to this day”.

                  Despite the obvious importance of the issue involved, the hearing on the petition prolonged for a full decade. A historic judgment was finally delivered on September 22, 2006, containing comprehensive guidelines to the state and Central governments. The court emphasised that “the commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law” and that “the supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard whatsoever to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures”. The landmark judgement of the Supreme Court is observed as the Police Reforms Day every year on September 22.

                 The Court understood the importance of institutionalising the necessary changes, and issued directions for the setting up of three bodies, namely, State Security Commission to insulate the police from extraneous influences, Police Establishment Board to give it functional autonomy, and Police Complaints Authority to ensure its accountability. Besides, the apex court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government based on merit through a thoroughly transparent process; and that the incumbent shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Likewise, police officers on operational duties in the field like the 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 the law and order police to improve the quality of investigations. The orders were to be implemented by March 31, 2007. The states dragged their feet in implementing the court’s direction. Consequently, a committee, headed by Justice K T Thomas, was appointed to monitor the implementation. This Committee expressed its “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of police being exhibited by the States”.

              A number of States, including Uttarakhand, have passed new Police Acts in the wake of the court’s judgment. These Acts, unfortunately, were passed to circumvent the implementation of the court’s directions. The states took advantage of a proviso in the judgment that its orders would be operative “till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by the Central government and/or the state governments pass the requisite legislation”. The remaining states passed executive orders ostensibly in compliance of the court’s directions, but these were against the letter and spirit of court’s directions. The compliance, briefly, has been farcical.

             It will be fair to say that the Central government too has been diffident in carrying out reforms. It has not enacted the Model Police Act so far even though a draft was prepared by eminent jurist Soli Sorabjee in 2006 itself. The net result is that police reforms mandated by the Supreme Court are still either completely ignored, or have been enforced only half-heartedly. The vested interests, which want the status quo to continue, have in fact been pushing police in the reverse gear. Crime and lawlessness in States need to be addressed with much urgency as a peaceful social order is a prerequisite for development. Yet, major States like Uttar Pradesh have paid little attention to this vital aspect of governance, as can be judged from the fact that the institution of DGP has been rendered a laughing stock by appointing persons to that high office for very short periods of one or two months.

            It cannot be overemphasised that police reforms are the need of the hour if we are to have a prospering economy and a progressive Indian state. Is it not tragic that even after nearly seven decades of Independence and two decades after a historic legal battle in the Supreme Court, we are still nowhere close to getting an efficient, ethical and dependable police force? Someone has said: “The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for”. In the case of the police that we have, this is absolutely true.     

            Aloke Lal, Former Director-General of Police

======