?
The use of latex catsuits in futuristic and cyber fashion trends,The Best Latex Catsuits for Burlesque Shows latex-free clothing How has the availability of latex clothing changed over the years,Latex clothing in pop culture latex bodysuits

omega ck2129 replica breitling navitimer a24322 review replica watches uk rolex 6263 non paul newman daytona price vintage longines watches uk replica watches

Official website of Shri Jayant Chaudhary - Parliamentary Q&A on Police reforms in India
Your Voice - Your Issues
09 May 2013

Parliamentary Q&A on Police reforms in India

User Rating:  / 3
PoorBest 
Written by Saanya Gulati

The history behind police reforms in India

Deficiencies in our police forces remain a missing link in our criminal justice system. Recently reported in the rape of a 5-year old girl that sparked protests across the nation, police officials allegedly offered a bribe to the victim’s father in an attempt to not register her case. This episode highlights deep-seated problems of corruption in our police force, and once again begs the question of police reforms, which have a longstanding history in our political and legal discourse.

The history of police reforms dates back to 1979, when the National Police Commission was constituted. Various bodies since – including the Riberio, the Padmanabhan, and Soli Sorabjee Committees have submitted their recommendations on reforming the police system. Few of these were implemented. The Justice Verma Commission that recently submitted its report on amendments to the criminal law also acknowledges that police reforms are the need of the hour.

Seven Directives on Police Reform by the Supreme Court

In 2006, the landmark judgment of the Prakash Singh case –a Public Interest Litigation filed by two former Director General’s of Police on the non-implementation of police reforms –was heard in the Supreme Court, which issued a set of seven directives for all States and Union Territories to implement. Each of these directives aims to plug the different loopholes that plague police systems. Unlike the non-enforceable recommendations made by past Committees, these directives are binding on States and Union Territories.

 

The first of these directives is to constitute a State Security Commission that will lay down broad policy guidelines and evaluate the performance of the State police.  Many of the previous committees had also suggested that a similar body be set up. States here were given the flexibility to choose between the models recommended by the Rebeiro Committee, the Soli Sorabjee Committee, or the National Human Rights Commission.

The main purpose of such a body is to evolve a fixed set of parameters that can be used to assess the performance of the police forces. Currently, performance is measured against crime statistics, which has been identified as the root cause of many problems in our criminal justice system — the largest and most detrimental being the non-registration of cases. Civil society groups like the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and internal agencies like the Bureau of Police Research and Development, have pointed out the need for a more holistic method of evaluation, and more reasonable criteria against which performance of the police is measured.

The Second Directive is for the State Director General of Police (DGP) to be selected from the three senior-most officers in the Department enlisted for the post by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and be given a minimum tenure of two years. This is to rectify the often arbitrary and non-transparent procedure by which the DGP, the highest-ranking police officer in a State, is appointed. A fixed tenure can also prevent unwarranted transfers at the behest of third parties, and ensure that a prescribed legal procedure is followed for removals.

Similarly, the third directive, which gives a minimum tenure of two years to all police officers on operational duties, can play a role in de-politicising the police force.

The fourth directive is to separate the investigating and law and order function of the police. This is to ensure greater specialization and efficiency in what are essentially the two primary functions of the police. A Review Committee that was constituted under the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2004 identified this as a crucial step in transforming the police into a professionally competent and service oriented organization.

The fifth directive is to set up a Police Establishment Board that decides matters related to transfers and promotions, the sixth, to constitute a Police Complaints Authority at State and District Levels for looking into complaints against police officers, and the seventh, to Set up a National Security Commission at the Center that will prepare a panel to select and place Chiefs of Central Police Organisations. Each these steps seek to streamline different functions, make procedures more transparent, and enhance the overall accountability of the police.

The Status of Police Reforms across States

According to data given in the reply to a Parliamentary Question, 27 States have constituted a Police Establishment Board, 19 have set up Police Complaints Authorities, and 21 have established a State Security Commission. The Ministry of Home Affairs has gone forth and set up all of these bodies in the Union Territories.

As this data suggests, States have not implemented all of these directives, despite over six years having passed since the Supreme Court judgment.  The information provided in the reply pertains to only 3 of the 7 directives – however, the K.T. Thomas Committee constituted by the Supreme Court to examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in adherence to the Court’s directions, reveals non-compliance across several of the directives.

In Haryana, for instance, despite the creation of a State Police Board, this body is not required to evaluate the performance of the State police. This defeats the very purpose of constituting such an authority. Similarly in Uttar Pradesh, the State Security Commission does not conform to any one of the models recommended by the Supreme Court. More so, it includes members only from the ruling party, which would presumably undermine its ability to withstand political interference. (Human Rights Initiative)

Police Reforms in Uttar Pradesh

A closer look at Uttar Pradesh reveals that the State has in some way defaulted on all six directives that states are required to take. (The seventh is the responsibility of the Central Government)

The issue with the State Security Commission is already mentioned above. On the second directive, different reports are at odds about whether the State Government has issued an order that notifies the minimum tenure for the DGP, or whether this has been prescribed through a letter. While the current rules do adhere to the directive in fixing the DGP’s tenure at two years, this is subject to superannuation, and not irrespective of it, which is what the directive states. Moreover a letter issued by the Chief Secretary, related to transfer policy of government officials, states that the Chief Minister may transfer any person may “in the public interest.” It is uncertain whether this is applicable to the DGP as well.

On the question of tenure for other police officers, the Uttar Pradesh Government has not taken any action. Other states in this situation are J&K, Maharashtra, and Tami Nadu. Separation of the police’s investigatory and law and order functions, has been implemented at a limited number of inspector level police stations in the State. However, no additional posts have been created to ensure greater specialization. Recent events in the State have demonstrated that law and order remains a grave concern for the state.

Four separate Police Establishment Boards have been created in the state, however this is only applicable to transfers below the rank of Deputy of Assistant Superintendent of Police. For ranks above, the Civil Service Board, a pre-established body constituted in 2001, continues to exercise control over transfer related and other matters that concern officers above the. The composition of this body is not consistent with the guidelines given in Supreme Court directive.

On the sixth directive, of creating a Police Complaints Authority, the State has not taken any efforts toward achieving this, which is a crucial step for reaising accountability in the system. (People Police Movement; Human Rights Initiative)

It is a well-known fact that Uttar Pradesh with its massive population has one of the highest number of prisoners, topping the list in most categories. But it also ranks as one of the worst in governance rankings in terms of its police system and law and order.

In 2010, it was one of the four states - along with Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal – to which the Supreme Court had issued notices for total non-compliance with the directives on police reform.

You can access the replies to Parliamentary Questions raised on the issue of Police Reforms here, and here.

[Police Reforms is the first of a four-part series called “Questions & Answers,” which highlights information from Parliamentary Questions asked by M.P. Jayant Chaudhary in 2012-2013, written by Saanya Gulati.]

Saanya Gulati is a LAMP Fellow at PRS Legislative Research