For many in India, policing conjures up images of sloth, rudeness, potbelly, corruption and unkempt Khaki. On the other hand, the police officers feel that the depiction is unfair – they are actually overworked, underpaid and subject to whimsical and abrupt transfers that prevent them from knowing the neighbourhoods under their watch. However, everyone on both sides of the divide agree that Policing in India needs serious reforms and urgently.
Policing
is a state subject and the Police in India has been governed by an archaic
Police Act of 1861 which envisaged abject fealty of the Police to the rulers.
11 states set up state police commissions led by Kerala in 1959, the latest
being in 1984 by Andhra Pradesh, to bring about reforms in policing. Reports of
these commissions gathered dust in their respective states. At the national
level, the Central government set up the National Police Commission in 1977
with ex–Governor, Dharam Vira as Chairman and comprising four other extremely
eminent members. This Commission did ground–breaking work and submitted eight reports
between 1979 and 1981 covering all aspects of policing. These reports were
outstanding, comprehensive, earth–shaking – and ignored. The Commission also
produced a model Police Act to replace the Act of 1861 and that too was
ignored.
In
1996, Mr. Prakash Singh, a celebrated Police officer who had been DGP of Assam
and UP and DG, BSF, along with others, moved a writ petition in the Supreme
Court to issue directions to the government to frame a new Police Act on the
lines of the model Act drafted by the National Police Commission in order to
ensure that the police is made accountable essentially and primarily to the law
of the land and the people. Mr. Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioners.
After 10 long years, on September 22, 2006, the division bench of Justices
Sabharwal, Thakker and Balasubramanyan of the Supreme Court delivered a
landmark judgement [case no. 310 of Prakash Singh and Ors vs Union of India and
Ors] which promised to radically change the face of policing and, by extension,
governance in India.
The
Supreme Court gave seven directions: (i) Constitute a State Security Commission
fairly independent of the political executive which will insulate the police
from undue interference, (ii) Transparent, merit–based process of appointing
the DGP and giving him a two – year tenure, (iii) Two – year tenure for Zonal
IG, Range DIG, SP of district and SHO, (iv) Separate Investigation wing from
Law & Order wing, (v) Set up a Police Establishment Board consisting of DGP
and four other senior police officers to decide transfers, postings and other
service related matters up to the rank of Dy. S.P. and recommend regarding posting
and transfers for higher ranks, (vi) Set up Police Complaints Authority to
inquire into serious complaints against Police, and (vii) Set up a National
Security Commission for selection of chiefs of Central Police Organisations
with a minimum tenure of two years.
Essentially,
what the Supreme Court sought to do was to make Policing and the Police
administration autonomous, with loyalty only to the law of the land. India has
had an encouraging history of autonomous institutions delivering well. Even officials
steeped in a lifetime of wheeling and dealing because of job exigencies and
ethos have developed a spine the moment their autonomy has been ensured. The
autonomous institution of the Election Commission produced a T.N. Seshan who
changed the election landscape of the country into something which is the envy
of even the most advanced democracies. The Union Public Service Commission has
continued to select the best and the brightest without fear or favour or
corruption. Some of the Comptrollers and Auditor Generals have done stellar
work and refused to bow down before the might of the Executive. In fits and
starts, the higher Judiciary has delivered.
It
took 10 years after the petition for the judgement. It has been another 17
years since then. Has anything changed? It has, for the worse. The judgement
shook not only the political establishment but also the civil administration
across the country. Almost all states entered impassioned objections to the
Supreme Court ruling. Each single state tried to first resist it, then to delay
and then to find inventive ways to circumvent.
The
first weapon in the arsenal of the government/s was to represent that Policing
was a state subject so it was up to the states. To my mind, this logic was
spurious. However, even if it had merit, the Centre did not pass a Police Act
for Delhi where the Police comes directly under it. After follow-through by the
Supreme Court, so far, only 18 out of the 28 states have passed new Acts; there
has been no new Police Act for the Union Territories. Most of the new Acts make
one hanker for the old 1861 Act.
On
paper, this is how things stand as of 2021 till which detailed inputs are
available. State Security Commissions have been set up for all the states and Union
Territories except Odisha. Only five states have allowed shortlisting of
candidates for the post of DGP by the UPSC and six states accorded her/him a
minimum 2-year tenure. 17 states and the
Union Territory of Delhi have provided for minimum tenures of two years for key
personnel. Only one state, Mizoram, made a serious attempt at separating the
investigation wing and the law and order wing. All the states have set up
Police Establishment Boards. Barring three states and the remaining Union
Territories, all the other states and Delhi have constituted Police Complaints
Authorities. National Security Commission has not been set up.
Is it
a mixed bag then? No, no, a thousand times NO. It’s way worse than before the
Supreme Court judgement if one looks at the real picture.
While
states have set up State Security Commissions, some have omitted and some have
“forgotten” to include the leader of the Opposition and/ or the judicial member.
While, as per the Supreme Court directive, the official members of the
Commission should be a minority, many of the Commissions are predominated by
the official appointees. Barring Karnataka, none of the states has made the
recommendation of the Commission binding. Even the requirement to submit an
annual report to the Assembly has been done away with except in nine states. So
these Commissions have only one function – produce a few reports which are never
read by anyone and are consigned to the dustbins, or, even worse in
bureaucratese, “FILED!”. Responsibility without any real power – prerogative of
the eunuchs through the ages.
That
all-important matter of insulating the DGP, the head of the police force, from
political interference – well, it didn’t happen. All that the Supreme Court
order achieved was legitimising wrongful action by the state governments. They
started appointing officers just before their retirement and giving them
two-year tenures on the pretext of the Supreme Court order. Either pliable
officers were found for this or their pliability was ensured because of the
lure of having their service careers extended by two years. The Supreme Court
wised up to it very late and ordered that such officers must have at least six
months’ tenure remaining. That led to states appointing officers holding
“temporary charge” of DGPs in perpetuity. The Supreme Court mandated that the
DGP can be removed from the post within two years only on three grounds,
indiscipline, conviction and incapacitation. However, many states have included
“convenient” phrases like “on other administrative grounds,” “in public
interest,” etc. as grounds for removal and this has made a mockery of the
two-year tenure provision. At least two of my batchmates were summarily removed
from the DGP posts on such ambiguous grounds.
None
of the states is inclined to implement two – year – tenure for other
operational officers, Zonal IGP, Range DIG and so on. Police Acts of some
states provide that the tenure would be “generally” or “normally” two years.
Further, words like “in public interest,” “any other contingency,” etc. as
grounds for removal render the minimum tenure bit meaningless. The transfers
have become so frequent that at a certain stage of my career, every day, while
boarding the staff car in the morning to go to office, I used to check up
WhatsApp as to where I was posted that day and then instruct the driver
accordingly. Once I searched for three days for the office where I was posted
before realising that the office didn’t exist. In the next posting, a traffic
sergeant performing duty 10 feet away didn’t know the existence of the office –
it was that insignificant.
On
ground, investigation has not been separated from Law & Order although some
states have passed executive orders with
riders. A senior IPS officer of UP carried out a time-and-motion study and
found that investigation is devoted some point zero zero something percentage of
a Police officer’s work–time while that is supposed to be her/his main task.
The issue appears to be manpower provisioning. What will it cost a ruling
dispensation to treble the police force one day? What might be the benefit?
Tremendous. But the benefits will come three to five years, hence. Political
view span in India – one to two years of effective government, rest of five
years in trumpeting it and preparing for the next election.
Police
Establishment Boards (PEBs) were mandated to consist of only Police officers so
that Police internal administration is insulated from extraneous influences and
pressures. Instead, some states have included others. PEBs were to decide on
all transfers of and below Dy SPs and recommend all transfers above Dy SPs.
That has not happened. The members of PEBs sign up or sign out after the orders of postings and
transfers are issued. Since this is the only Directive that seems to have been
implemented on paper, and since Mr. Prakash Singh was visiting IIPA when I was
pursuing an M. Phil., I asked him whether asking the Supreme Court to direct
video recording of the proceedings of the PEBs with electronic date-time-stamping
would be a good idea. His reply: “Agar aap DGP ban gaye ho aur tenure mila hai toh
spine kyon nahin ho sakta hai aap mein?” [When you’ve become the DGP and got a
tenure, why can’t you develop a spine?] I find that many officers who are
championing the cause of Police reforms today are the very same officers who so
signed on the dotted line “post-facto,” back-dated, in their heydays, vitiating
the entire Supreme Court judgement by that one single act of theirs.
Police
Complaints Authorities were mandated to be set up both at the State level and
the district level to look into complaints of serious misconduct by the Police.
A few states have set them up on paper in a half-hearted way but whether the
authorities are doing any work is a moot question. Rather than embracing the
Directive, Police itself is the institution vehemently opposing it.
National
Security Commission has not been set up. This is one Directive where the
government has objected to everything – the nomenclature, the composition, the
functions and even the mandated two – year tenure of the chiefs.
So,
what is the net-net, or Naatu Naatu in today’s lingo? Governments/Politicians
are doing pretty much what they used to do/ what they want; in fact, the
transfers, etc. have become much more frequent and vindictive. Only, these
misdeeds have Supreme Court validation now, however specious. Why is the
Supreme Court not able to enforce its own orders? I am told by someone who
should know that just one particular lawyer, presumably at the behest of one
particular state, has been stymieing the process through many, many weapons of
legal skulduggery, adjournments, non-appearances, frivolous or dilatory
objections, and so on. Plus, there are more pressing matters like Arnab Goswami’s
bail application.
Wonderful post though one ends up seeing only dark clouds all round after reading it.
ReplyDeleteSo does it mean that we are condemned to live under the shadow of a politically induced corrupt and compromised Police and Security system?
What could we do to support a change ?
Shakti Ghosal
Let's brainstorm on this on our next outing.
DeleteVery poignant analysis. The key take away is that politicians (most likely aided by the IAS) have effectively stymied the Supreme Court decision for reform.
ReplyDeleteIn the next blog please give some suggestions as to what could be done to reduce or eliminate the rampant corruption in police cadres.
Thank you. Some of the earlier blog posts have given some suggestions. Planning a detailed one later.
Delete