POLICE REFORMS: IS UTTARAKHAND ALIVE TO THE NEED ?

Indian police has the serious handicap that it is still largely controlled by the antiquated Police Act of 1861. The manuals and regulations which lay down police procedures have over the years been based on this act which is now 155 years old. It need not be said that police is now dealing with a whole new set of challenges. The major watershed was India’s Independence almost seven decades ago. It may be recalled that the 1861 Act was enforced as a consequence of the 1857 uprising in India, and the then British rulers recognised the need to create a police force which was designed to perpetuate their presence in the subcontinent and provide for the necessary infrastructure to smoothly collect taxes and bolster their revenues. The intention was not to create a system that would ensure even-handed justice. It was a police meant for the ruler with an idea to subdue the subject; and any thoughts of giving the citizen of a country under British occupation a real sense of fortitude in terms of justice was farthest from the minds of the makers of the Act in question. Independent India thus inherited a police set up which was for the rulers and had no place for accommodating the aspirations of the citizens of an independent country.

The need for reforming the police systems in India has been felt for a very long time. Even the British government recognised it, and brought in reforms, though they were meant only to keep the running of the affairs of the state smoothly, and had little to do with real sense of justice for the citizen.

In the last three decades and more, there have been many efforts to examine the ways to bring about changes in the manner in which the police functioned. A serious effort was made by Government of India when the National Police Commission (NPC) was set up in 1979. The Commission produced eight reports including a Model Police Act. However, none of the major recommendations were adopted by any government. Having observed the unwillingness of the government for making any move to bring about reforms, two former Directors- General of Police filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court in 1996 asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. It was only a decade later in 2006 that the Court delivered its verdict. In what is referred to as the Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court ordered that reforms must take place. The Centre, States and Union Territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick-start reform. These directives encapsulated the vision of improvement generated since 1979. The Court required immediate implementation of its orders through executive orders and by bringing new Police Acts.  The Court issued seven important directives to the Centre and the State governments. Uttarakhand was one of the earliest states to enact the Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 in compliance of the Apex Court’s order. It will be instructive to see how far we have been compliant with the spirit of the Court’s orders by analysing the progress on each of the seven main directives.

Directive One

Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to: (i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police (ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and (iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police.

Uttarakhand made a SSC in compliance of this directive. The Chief Minister is the ex-officio chairperson of SSC. Mr Ajit Doval, the current NSA, was also included in the Commission. One meeting of the Commission was held in 2008. Thereafter, no meetings have been held. Obviously, the three important functions assigned to the Commission have been completely neglected.

Directive Two

Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and serves for a minimum tenure of two years. There have been controversial appointments, and transparency has not been unquestionable. The tenure also was made a laughing stock when incumbent DGP J S Pande was moved out to accommodate V R Pant who had only a few months service left before superannuation. It was baffling that Pande was moved out in just a little over one year, and even more curious was the appointment of his successor, Pant, only for a few months.

Directive Three

Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years. There have been umpteen instances when officers were transferred before completion of the prescribed tenure. In fact, to begin with, the Court’s directions were diluted when the tenure for some levels was fixed for as low as one year only. In the case of Jagat Ram Joshi, Superintendent of Police, the High Court intervened to direct the government to post him back as SP Dehradun because the tenure as laid down in the Act was not completed. Yet, the officer was persuaded to accept a posting as SP Kashipur to save the government from embarrassment. This rap on the knuckles, though has not deterred the government from posting officers out before the whole tenure is completed.

Directive Four

Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. There was an effort to create special investigation-only cadres in some of the important police stations of the state about six years ago. Unfortunately , the practice was discontinued after some time.      

Directive Five

Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other Service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. A PEB is in existence, and has had many meetings over the years. The PEB is headed by the DGP and comprises of the senior-most officers of the department. However, a highly-placed source in the Police HQ has revealed that most of the key appointments are first decided at political level, and the PEB only endorses what trickles down. In effect, this directive too is not being complied in spirit.

Directive Six

Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct. There is a PCA functioning in the state. I have been told by one of the past Chairmen of the Authority that in many cases the DGP and Government have not been complying with the directions for punitive action to be taken against policemen issued from time to time.

Directive Seven

Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years. This is a provision meant for the Central government.

                The foregoing analysis makes it amply clear that despite the alacrity with which the Police Act was enacted in the year 2007 by the State legislature, the government has not been adhering to the provisions the Act has; and wherever there is compliance in word, the spirit of reform has been sadly missing.

---------