POLICE REFORMS IN INDIA – A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Prakash Singh

The police organization in India in its present form is based essentially on the Police Act of 1861, which was legislated “to re-organise the police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime”. It constituted a single homogenous force of civil constabulary for the performance of all duties which could not be assigned to the military arm. The management of the force in each province was entrusted to an Inspector General who was assisted by Superintendents of Police in each district. The superintendence of the police was vested in the state government.

The Indian Police Commission of 1902-03, which reviewed the working of the police, found that the system had failed because the importance of the police work had been under-estimated and responsible duties entrusted to un-trained and ill-educated officers recruited in the lowest ranks from the lower strata of society, that supervision had been defective, that the superior officers of the department were insufficiently trained, and that their sense of responsibility had been weakened by “a degree of interference never contemplated by the authors of the system”. It concluded that “the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government, and that radical reforms are urgently necessary”. This was the first time that a responsible body talked of police reforms. Ironically, the battle for reforms continues even after more than a hundred years.

Independence – Status Quo continues

At the dawn of independence, it was expected that a new role, a new philosophy would be defined for the police, that its accountability to the law of the land and the people of the country would be underscored in unmistakable terms. But that was not to be and “the relationship that existed between the police and the foreign power before independence was allowed to continue with the only change that the foreign power was substituted by the political party in power”.

For some years, however, there was no problem, thanks to the quality of political as well as administrative leadership. The politicians were men of great stature, endowed with vision and committed to pursuing the national interests. The administrators were also thorough professionals, keen on playing their role in the independent India. The politicians drew from the professional experience and expertise of the civil servant who, in turn, benefited from the politicians’ commitment to democracy and secularism. There was mutual respect for each other, give and take in the pursuit of common objective of taking the nation forward on the road to progress and modernity.

As the years rolled by, however, there was unfortunately a qualitative change in the style of politics. The fire of idealism which had inspired the first generation of post-independent politicians and civil servants started getting dim. Power became an end in itself, and gradually a symbiotic relationship developed between the politicians on the one hand and the civil servants on the other. Vested interests grew on both sides and, as commented by the National Police Commission, “what started as a normal interaction between the politicians and the services for the avowed objective of better administration with better awareness of public feelings and expectations, soon degenerated into different forms of intercession, intervention and interference with mala fide objectives unconnected with public interest”.

It was around mid-sixties that the political leadership injected the concept of ‘commitment’ in administration. It caused havoc. Officers were selected and given key placements in consideration of their affinity and loyalty to the ruling party and its political philosophy. Their intrinsic merit and administrative qualifications were given secondary importance. The disastrous consequences of this were seen during the Emergency (1975-77) when, as observed by the Shah Commission in its interim report, “…the police was used and allowed themselves to be used for purposes some of which were, to say the least, questionable. Some police officers behaved as though they are not accountable at all to any public authority. The decision to arrest and release certain persons were entirely on political considerations which were intended to be favorable to the ruling party. Employing the police to the advantage of any political party is a sure source of subverting the rule of law. The Government must seriously consider the feasibility and the desirability of insulating the police from the politics of the country and employing it scrupulously on duties for which alone it is by law intended.”

In its third and final report (1978), the Shah Commission warned that “If a recurrence of this type of subversion is to be prevented the system must be overhauled with a view to strengthen it in a manner that the functionaries working in the system do so in an atmosphere free from the fear of consequences of their lawful action and in a spirit calculated to promote the integrity and welfare of the Nation and the rule of law.”

The suggested overhaul was, unfortunately, never taken up. The Bureau of Police Research and Development, in a paper Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police, published in 1979, warned that “excessive control of the political executive and its principal adviser over the police has the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the process of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism, and shaking the very foundations of democracy.” The warning went unheeded.

State Police Commissions

Several State Police Commissions, at different period of time, suggested structural reforms in the police and emphasized the need to insulate it form extraneous pressures, but their core recommendations were never implemented by the executive. The Kerala Police Reorganization Committee (1959) said that “the greatest obstacle to efficient police administration flows from the domination of party politics under the state administration… the result of partisan interference is often reflected in lawless enforcement of laws, inferior service and in general decline of police prestige followed by irresponsible criticism and consequent widening of the cleavage between the police and the public.” The West Bengal Police Commission (1960-61) found that there were frequent allegations that investigation of offences was sought to be interfered with by influential persons highly placed in society or office. The Punjab Police Commission (1961-62) deplored that “members of political parties, particularly of the ruling party, whether in the legislature or outside, interfere considerably in the working of the police for unlawful ends”. The Delhi Police Commission (1968) observed that political interference was a rich source of corruption. The Tamilnadu Police Commission (1971) stated that the problem of political interference had grown over the years in spite of the most explicit public declarations made by the successive Chief Ministers. Observations on similar lines were made by the Police Commissions of Bihar, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Andhra Pradesh also.

National Police Commission

The Government of India appointed a National Police Commission in 1977, as it felt that “far reaching changes have taken place in the country” since independence but “there has been no comprehensive review at the national level of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country”. It was felt that “a fresh examination is necessary of the role and performance of the police both as a law enforcement agency and as an institution to protect rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution”. The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979 and 1981 which contained comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working.

In the first report, the National Police Commission recommended that the existing system of working of the constables, who constitute more than 85% of the force, be radically changed. They should be so recruited and trained that they could be deployed on duties involving the exercise of discretion and judgement. The Commission also suggested machinery for redressal of grievances within the police organization.

The second report of the Commission stressed that the basic role of the police is to function as a law enforcement agency and render impartial service to the people. It expressed grave concern on the misuse of police, interference by illegal or improper orders or pressure from political executives or other extraneous sources. The Commission recommended that the power of superintendence of the state government over the police should be limited to ensuring that the police perform their duties in accordance with the law. To ensure this, it recommended the setting up of a statutory body called the ‘State Security Commission’ in each state and also that the chief of police should be assured of a minimum prescribed tenure.

The third report dealt with the procedural laws and the evils of suppression of crime by non-registration of cases. It also examined the role of police in dealing with the weaker sections of society. The Commission emphasised that the posting of officers in-charge of police stations should be the exclusive responsibility of the district Superintendent of Police and similarly the selection and posting of Superintendents of Police should be the exclusive responsibility of the Chief of Police.

The fourth report emphasised the imperative need of co-ordinating the functioning of the investigating staff with the prosecuting agency and suggested reforms in procedural laws with a view to facilitating judicious conduct of investigations. On the subject of enforcement of social legislation, the Commission laid down the parameters of police involvement.

The fifth report dealt with the recruitment of constables and sub-inspectors and laid emphasis on their proper training.

The sixth report recommended police commissionerates in large cities with a population of five hundred thousand and above and also in places which had witnessed rapid industrialization or urbanisation. It also recommended certain measures to improve the police handling and investigation of cases of communal riots.

The seventh report dealt with the internal management of the police force and emphasised that this should be entirely under the purview of the Chief of Police.

The eighth report recommended that the State Security Commission should be provided with an independent cell to evaluate police performance in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

The Commission even drafted a model Police Bill which could be enacted. Its recommendations, however, received no more than a cosmetic treatment at the hands of the Government of India. The political leadership was just not prepared to give functional autonomy to the police because it had found this wing of the administration a convenient tool to further its partisan objectives. As for the bureaucracy, control over the police was - and continues to be - an intoxicant they have become addicted to and are just not willing to give that up. And so, the Act of 1861 continues to be on the statute book even after nearly 150 years – a millstone around the police neck.

Other Committees

Apart from the National Police Commission, several other bodies were constituted from time to time to go into the question of police reforms. These were:

• ➢ Gore Committee on Police Training (1971-73)
• ➢ Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)
• ➢ Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)
• ➢ Group of Ministers on National Security (2000-01)
• ➢ Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2001-3)

The Gore Committee was constituted to review the state of police training in the country and suggest improvements. The Ribeiro Committee was set up by the Supreme Court while it was deliberating over the Public Interest Litigation filed for police reforms; the Court wanted the Committee to examine if the National Police Commission’s recommendations, which formed the core of the PIL, were still relevant or that any modifications were called for. The Padmanabhaiah Committee examined the requirements of policing in the new millennium. The Group of Ministers examined the reports of various Committees which were set up in the wake of Pakistan’s aggression in Kargil, including the one dealing with internal security, and suggested comprehensive measures to strengthen the internal and external security apparatus. The Malimath Committee made far-reaching recommendations to reform the criminal justice system. It was of the view that the present Adversarial System could be improved by adapting some features of the Inquisitorial System, and recommended that ‘Quest for Truth’ should be the guiding principle of the entire criminal justice system. The Committee suggested significant changes in the Criminal Procedure Code to expedite the disposal of cases and in the Evidence Act to facilitate securing of convictions. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Malimath Committee were trashed because of the chorus of protest from the human rights lobbies.

Judicial Intervention

The core recommendations of the National Police Commission were resurrected through a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court in 1996. The petition argued that “the present distortions and aberrations in the functioning of the police have their roots in the colonial past, the structure and organization of the police which have remained basically unchanged during the last nearly 135 years, 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”. It drew attention of the Court to the misuse and abuse of the police in the following forms:

• ➢ Frequent postings and transfers
• ➢ Recruitment procedures vitiated through political recommendations
• ➢ Promotions influenced
• ➢ Investigations tampered with Unlawful directions to police
• ➢ Intelligence apparatus utilized for political purpose

The petition requested the Court to re-define the role and functions of the police, frame a new Police Act on the lines of the Model Bill drafted by the National Police Commission, and direct the states to constitute State Security Commissions to insulate the police from extraneous pressures, lay down a transparent procedure for the selection of Police Chiefs, and separate the investigation work from the law and order responsibilities of the police.

It was forcefully argued during the pendency of the petition that the continuance of the colonial pattern of policing had contributed to disasters at the national level. In 1984, there were anti –Sikh riots in Delhi in which about 3,000 persons were killed. The Delhi Police, barring some honourable exceptions, remained a mute spectator to the carnage because the rioters were instigated by politicians of the ruling party. In 1992, the disputed shrine in Ayodhya was demolished notwithstanding the presence of state police forces and the formidable presence of central paramilitary forces. These forces were immobilized because the political masters were not keen on preventing the karsevaks (volunteers) from vandalising the structure. In 2002, during the riots in Gujarat, the politicians played a dubious role and are alleged to have instigated the rioters at certain places. Police officers who tried to uphold the rule of law were punished by the executive. The National Human Rights Commission, which enquired into the incidents, recorded that “there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat” and urged that “the matter of police reforms receive attention at the highest political level, at the centre and in the states, and that this issue be pursued in good faith, and on a sustained basis with the greater interest of the country alone in mind, an interest that must overrule every extraneous consideration”. It emphasized that “the rot that has set in must be cured if the rule of law is to prevail”.

The writ petition was heard by the Supreme Court over a period of ten years. The dilemma before the Supreme Court was whether it should wait further for the governments to take suitable steps for police reforms. However, as recorded in the judgment, “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”.

In a landmark judgment on September 22, 2006, 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:

• State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police;
• Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the department which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make appropriate recommendations regarding the postings and transfers of officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above to the State Government; and
• Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to inquiring into allegations of serious 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. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General of Police of a Zone, Deputy Inspector General of a Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officer in-charge of a 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 ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government was also asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

Tardy Compliance

The judicial directions were to be implemented by December 31, 2006. Subsequently, the time limit was extended till March 31, 2007. There has been considerable resistance to implementing the directions. The political leadership and the bureaucracy are not prepared to loosen their stranglehold over the police. Eight states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh filed review petitions. However, all these petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 23, 2007. The majority of states nevertheless continued to drag their feet in implementation whereupon the petitioner moved for contempt against the defaulting states (Gujarat, J & K, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu & U.P) in April 2007. The Court was however not inclined to issue any contempt notices to the states.

On May 17, 2008 the Supreme Court constituted a Monitoring Committee headed by Justice KT Thomas to oversee the implementation of its directions in the States and Union Territories and apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any respondent so that appropriate follow up action could be taken, and also examine the legislations enacted by different states to see whether those were in compliance to the letter and spirit of the Court’s directions. The Committee, in its report submitted in August 2010, deplored that “practically no state has fully complied with those Directives so far, in letter and spirit”. It also expressed its “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being exhibited by the States”.

The Union Government, at its level, has not shown the expected commitment to police reforms. It had constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Sri Soli Sorabjee, a former Attorney General, to draft a Model Police Act. The Committee submitted its recommendations on October 30, 2006 “to empower the police to enable it to function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency”. The Committee broadly followed the pattern already recommended by the Supreme Court. The Government of India gave assurances on the floor of the parliament that a Model Police Act on the lines of Sorabjee Committee’s recommendations would be tabled in the near future, but the promise has not been kept so far.

Present Status

Seventeen states (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamilnadu, Tripura, and Uttrakhand ) have drafted laws purportedly in compliance of Supreme Court’s directions. However, in actual fact, these laws have been enacted to circumvent the implementation of Supreme Court’s directions.

The remaining states have dilly-dallied in the implementation of the Hon’ble Court’s directions. Even where the mandated institutions – the State Security Commission, Police Establishment Board and the Complaints Authorities - have been set up, their composition has been subverted, their charter diluted or their powers curtailed. There is arbitrariness in the appointment of DGP with several states not consulting the UPSC in the empanelment of officers. Police officers on operational assignments are shunted out for all kinds of administrative reasons before the completion of two years. There is tardiness in the separation of investigative and law and order functions of the police.

Government of India has also not shown sincerity in implementing the Court’s directions. It has yet to pass a Model Police Bill.

The urgency of police reforms cannot be over-emphasized. Police reforms are essential to protect the democratic structure of the country, which is being threatened by criminal elements, and to sustain the momentum of economic progress. They are a sine qua non for improving governance, for upholding the Rule of Law and to ensure better respect for human rights of the ordinary citizens.

Historic Judgement of September 22, 2006 and Judgement Confirmation (Jan 11,2007)

CASE NO.: Write Petition (civil) 310 of 1996

PETITIONER:
Prakash Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/09/2006

BENCH:
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.

Considering the far reaching changes that had taken place in the country after the enactment of the Indian Police Act, 1861 and absence of any comprehensive review at the national level of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country, the Government of India, on 15th November, 1977, appointed a National Police Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). The commission was appointed for fresh examination of the role and performance of the police both as a law enforcing agency and as an institution to protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution.

The terms and reference of the Commission were wide ranging. The terms of reference, inter alia, required the Commission to redefine the role, duties, powers and responsibilities of the police with special reference to prevention and control of crime and maintenance of public order, evaluate the performance of the system, identify the basic weaknesses or inadequacies, examine if any changes necessary in the method of administration, disciplinary control and accountability, inquire into the system of investigation and prosecution, the reasons for delay and failure and suggest how the system may be modified or changed and made efficient, scientific and consistent with human dignity, examine the nature and extent of the special responsibilities of the police towards the weaker sections of the community and suggest steps and to ensure prompt action on their complaints for the safeguard of their rights and interests. The Commission was required to recommend measures and institutional arrangements to prevent misuse of powers by the police, by administrative or executive instructions, political or other pressures or oral orders of any type, which are contrary to law, for the quick and impartial inquiry of public complaints made against the police about any misuse of police powers. The Chairman of the Commission was a renowned and highly reputed former Governor. A retired High Court Judge, two former Inspector Generals of Police and a Professor of TATA Institute of Special Sciences were members with the Director, CBI as a full time Member Secretary.

The Commission examined all issues in depth, in period of about three and a half years during which it conducted extensive exercise through analytical studies and research of variety of steps combined with an assessment and appreciation of actual field conditions. Various study groups comprising of prominent public men, Senior Administrators, Police Officers and eminent academicians were set up. Various seminars held, research studies conducted, meetings and discussions held with the Governors, Chief Ministers, Inspector Generals of Police, State Inspector Generals of Police and Heads of Police organizations. The Commission submitted its first report in February 1979, second in August 1979, three reports each in the years 1980 and 1981 including the final report in May 1981.

In its first report, the Commission first dealt with the modalities for inquiry into complaints of police misconduct in a manner which will carry credibility and satisfaction to the public regarding their fairness and impartiality and rectification of serious deficiencies which militate against their functioning efficiently to public satisfaction and advised the Government for expeditious examination of recommendations for immediate implementation. The Commission observed that increasing crime, rising population, growing pressure of living accommodation, particularly, in urban areas, violent outbursts in the wake of demonstrations and agitations arising from labour disputes, the agrarian unrest, problems and difficulties of students, political activities including the cult of extremists, enforcement of economic and social legislation etc. have all added new dimensions to police tasks in the country and tended to bring the police in confrontation with the public much more frequently than ever before. The basic and fundamental problem regarding police taken note of was as to how to make them functional as an efficient and impartial law enforcement agency fully motivated and guided by the objectives of service to the public at large, upholding the constitutional rights and liberty of the people. Various recommendations were made.

In the second report, it was noticed that the crux of the police reform is to secure professional independence for thepolice to function truly and efficiently as an impartial agent of the law of the land and, at the same time, to enable the Government to oversee the police performance to ensure its conformity to the law. A supervisory mechanism without scope for illegal, irregular or mala fide interference with police functions has to be devised. It was earnestly hoped that the Government would examine and publish the reportexpeditiously so that the process for implementation of various recommendations made therein could start right away. The report, inter alia, noticed the phenomenon of frequent and indiscriminate transfers ordered on political considerations as also other unhealthy influences and pressures brought to bear on police and, inter alia, recommended for the Chief of Police in a State, statutory tenure of office by including it in a specific provision in the Police Act itself and also recommended the preparation of a panel of IPS officers for posting as Chiefs of Police in States. The report also recommended the constitution of Statutory Commission in each State the function of which shall include laying down broad policy guidelines and directions for the performance of preventive task and service oriented functions by the police and also functioning as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from any Police Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above, regarding his being subjected to illegal or irregular orders in the performance of his duties.

With the 8th and final report, certain basic reforms for the effective functioning of the police to enable it to promote the dynamic role of law and to render impartial service to the people were recommended and a draft new Police Act incorporating the recommendations was annexed as an appendix.

When the recommendations of National Police Commission were not implemented, for whatever reasons or compulsions, and they met the same fate as the recommendations of many other Commissions, this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed about 10 years back, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to Government of India to frame a new Police Act on the lines of the model Act drafted by the Commission in order to ensure that the police is made accountable essentially and primarily to the law of the land and the people. The first writ petitioner is known for his outstanding contribution as a Police Officer and in recognition of his outstanding contribution, he was awarded the "Padma Shri" in 1991. He is a retired officer of Indian Police Service and served in various States for three and a half decades. He was Director General of Police of Assam and Uttar Pradesh besides the Border Security Force. The second petitioner also held various high positions in police. The third petitioner Common cause is an organization which has brought before this Court and High Courts various issues of public interest.

The first two petitioners have personal knowledge of the working of the police and also problems of the people.

It has been averred in the petition that the violation of fundamental and human rights of the citizens are generally in the nature of non-enforcement and discriminatory application of the laws so that those having clout are not held accountable even for blatant violations of laws and, in any case, not brought to justice for the direct violations of the rights of citizens in the form of unauthorized detentions, torture, harassment, fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecutions etc.

The petition sets out certain glaring examples of police inaction. According to the petitioners, the present distortions and aberrations in the functioning of the police have their roots in the Police Act of 1861, structure and organization of police having basically remained unchanged all these years.

The petition sets out the historical background giving reasons why the police functioning has caused so much disenchantment and dissatisfaction. It also sets out recommendations of various Committees which were never implemented. Since the misuse and abuse of police has reduced it to the status of a mere tool in the hands of unscrupulous masters and in the process, it has caused serious violations of the rights of the people, it is contended that there is immediate need to re-define the scope and functions of police, and provide for its accountability to the law of the land, and implement the core recommendations of the National Police Commission. The petition refers to a research paper 'Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police' published in 1979 by Bureau of Police Research and Development, warning that excessive control of the political executive and its principal advisers over the police has the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the process of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism, and shaking the very foundations of democracy.

The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the Rule of Law. 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. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the Rule of Law becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.

The petitioners seek that Union of India be directed to re-define the role and functions of the police and 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. Directions are also sought against the Union of India and State Governments to constitute various Commissions and Boards laying down the policies and ensuring that police perform their duties and functions free from any pressure and also for separation of investigation work from that of law and order.

The notice of the petition has also been served on State Governments and Union Territories. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu Malhotra for the National Human Rights Commission and Ms. Swati Mehta for the Common Welfare Initiatives. For most of the State Governments/Union Territories oral submissions were not made. None of the State Governments/Union Territories urged that any of the suggestion put forth by the petitioners and Solicitor General of India may not be accepted.

Besides the report submitted to the Government of India by National Police Commission (1977-81), various other high powered Committees and Commissions have examined the issue of police reforms, viz. (i) National Human RightsCommission (ii) Law Commission (iii) Ribeiro Committee (iv) Padmanabhaiah Committee and (v) Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System.

In addition to above, the Government of India in terms of Office Memorandum dated 20th September, 2005 constituted a Committee comprising Shri Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney General and five others to draft a new Police Act in view of the changing role of police due to various socio-economic and political changes which have taken place in the country and the challenges posed by modern day global terrorism, extremism, rapid urbanization as well as fast evolving aspirations of a modern democratic society. The Sorabjee Committee has prepared a draft outline for a new Police Act (9th September, 2006).

About one decade back, viz. on 3rd August, 1997 a letter was sent by a Union Home Minister to the State Governments revealing a distressing situation and expressing the view that if the Rule of Law has to prevail, it must be cured.

Despite strong expression of opinions by various Commissions, Committees and even a Home Minister of the country, the position has not improved as these opinions have remained only on paper, without any action. In fact, position has deteriorated further. The National Human Rights Commission in its report dated 31st May, 2002, inter alia, noted that:

Police Reform:

28(i) The Commission drew attention in its 1 st April 2002 proceedings to the need to act decisively on the deeper question of Police Reform, on which recommendations of the National Police Commission (NPC) and of the National Human Rights Commission have been pending despite efforts to have them acted upon. The Commission added that recent event in Gujarat and, indeed, in other States of the country, underlined the need to proceed without delay to implement the reforms that have already been recommended in order to preserve the integrity of the investigating process and to insulate it from 'extraneous influences'.

In the above noted letter dated 3rd April, 1997 sent to all the State Governments, the Home Minister while echoing the overall popular perception that there has been a general fall in the performance of the police as also a deterioration in the policing system as a whole in the country, expressed that time had come to rise above limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by unhealthy developments. It was expressed that the popular perception all over the country appears to be that many of the deficiencies in the functioning of the police had arisen largely due to an overdose of unhealthy and petty political interference at various levels starting from transfer and posting of policemen of different ranks, misuse of police for partisan purposes and political patronage quite often extended to corrupt police personnel. The Union Home Minister expressed the view that rising above narrow and partisan considerations, it is of great national importance to insulate the police from the growing tendency of partisan or political interference in the discharge of its lawful functions of prevention and control of crime including investigation of cases and maintenance of public order.

Besides the Home Minister, all the Commissions and Committees above noted, have broadly come to the same conclusion on the issue of urgent need for police reforms. There is convergence of views on the need to have (a) State Security Commission at State level; (b) transparent procedure for the appointment of Police Chief and the desirability of giving him a minimum fixed tenure; (c) separation of investigation work from law and order; and (d) a new Police Act which should reflect the democratic aspirations of the people. It has been contended that a statutory State Security Commission with its recommendations binding on the Government should have been established long before. The apprehension expressed is that any Commission without giving its report binding effect would be ineffective.

More than 25 years back i.e. in August 1979, the Police Commission Report recommended that the investigation task should be beyond any kind of intervention by the executive or non-executive.

For separation of investigation work from law and order even the Law Commission of India in its 154th Report had recommended such separation to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people without of-course any water tight compartmentalization in view of both functions being closely inter-related at the ground level.

The Sorabjee Committee has also recommended establishment of a State Bureau of Criminal Investigation by the State Governments under the charge of a Director who shall report to the Director General of Police.

In most of the reports, for appointment and posting, constitution of a Police Establishment Board has been recommended comprising of the Director General of Police of the State and four other senior officers. It has been further recommended that there should be a Public Complaints Authority at district level to examine the complaints from the public on police excesses, arbitrary arrests and detentions, false implications in criminal cases, custodial violence etc. and for making necessary recommendations.

Undoubtedly and undisputedly, the Commission did commendable work and after in depth study, made very useful recommendations. After waiting for nearly 15 years, this petition was filed. More than ten years have elapsed since this petition was filed. Even during this period, on more or less similar lines, recommendations for police reforms have been made by other high powered committees as above noticed. The Sorabjee Committee has also prepared a draft report. We have no doubt that the said Committee would also make very useful recommendations and come out with a model new Police Act for consideration of the Central and the State Governments. We have also no doubt that Sorabjee Committee Report and the new Act will receive due attention of the Central Government which may recommend to the State Governments to consider passing of State Acts on the suggested lines. We expect that the State Governments would give it due consideration and would pass suitable legislations on recommended lines, the police being a State subject under the Constitution of India. The question, however, is whether this Court should further wait for Governments to take suitable steps for police reforms. The answer has to be in the negative.

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. It may further be noted that the quality of Criminal Justice System in the country, to a large extent, depends upon the working of the police force. Thus, having regard to the larger public interest, it is absolutely necessary to issue the requisite directions. Nearly ten years back, in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226], this Court noticed the urgent need for the State Governments to set up the requisite mechanism and directed the Central Government to pursue the matter of police reforms with the State Governments and ensure the setting up of a mechanism for selection/appointment, tenure, transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police but also all police officers of the rank of Superintendents of Police and above. The Court expressed its shock that in some States the tenure of a Superintendent of Police is for a few months and transfers are made for whimsical reasons which has not only demoralizing effect on the police force but is also alien to the envisaged constitutional machinery. It was observed that apart from demoralizing the police force, it has also the adverse effect of politicizing the personnel and, therefore, it is essential that prompt measures are taken by the Central Government.

The Court then observed that no action within the constitutional scheme found necessary to remedy the situation is too stringent in these circumstances.

More than four years have also lapsed since the report above noted was submitted by the National Human Rights commission to the Government of India.

The preparation of a model Police Act by the Central Government and enactment of new Police Acts by State Governments providing therein for the composition of State Security Commission are things, we can only hope for the present. Similarly, we can only express our hope that all State Governments would rise to the occasion and enact a new Police Act wholly insulating the police from any pressure whatsoever thereby placing in position an important measure for securing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution for the Rule of Law, treating everyone equal and being partisan to none, which will also help in securing an efficient and better criminal justice delivery system. It is not possible or proper to leave this matter only with an expression of this hope and to await developments further. It is essential to lay down guidelines to be operative till the new legislation is enacted by the State Governments.

Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to issue such directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. All authorities are mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the orders passed by this Court. The decision in Vineet Narain's case (supra) notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be observed were issued in absence of legislation and implemented till legislatures pass appropriate legislations.

With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the various reports. In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations :

State Security Commission

1) The State Governments are directed to constitute a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country. This watchdog body shall be headed by the Chief Minister or Home Minister as Chairman and have the DGP of the State as its ex- officio Secretary. The other members of the Commission shall be chosen in such a manner that it is able to function independent of Government control. For this purpose, the State may choose any of the models recommended by the National Human Rights Commission, the Ribeiro Committee or the Sorabjee Committee, which are asunder:

NHRC

1. Chief Minister/HM as Chairman
2. Lok Ayukta or, in his absence, a retired Judge of High Court to be nominated by Chief Justice or a Member of State Human Rights Commission
3. A sitting or retired Judge nominated by Chief Justice of High Court.
4. Chief Secretary
5. Leader of Opposition in Lower House.
6. DGP as ex-officio Secretary

Ribeiro Committee

1. Minister i/c Police as Chairman
2. Leader of Opposition
3. Judge, sitting or retired, nominated by Chief Justice of High Court
4. Chief Secretary
5. Three non-political citizens of proven merit and integrity.
6. DG Police as Secretary.

Sorabjee Committee.

1. Minister i/c Police (ex- officio Chairperson)
2. Leader of Opposition
3. Chief Secretary
4. Chief Secretary
5. DGP (ex-officio Secretary)
6. Five independent Members.

The recommendations of this Commission shall be binding on the State Government.

The functions of the State Security Commission would include laying down the broad policies and giving directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police, evaluation of the performance of the State police and preparing a report thereon for being placed before the State legislature.

Selection and Minimum Tenure of DGP:

(2) The Director General of Police of the State 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 on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his duties.

Minimum Tenure of I.G. of Police & other officers:

(3) Police Officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General of Police in-charge Zone, Deputy Inspector General of Police in-charge Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge district and Station House Officer in-charge of a Police Station shall also have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years unless it is found necessary to remove them prematurely following disciplinary proceedings against them or their conviction in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption or if the incumbent is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his responsibilities. This would be subject to promotion and retirement of the officer.

Separation of Investigation:

(4) The investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. It must, however, be ensured that there is full coordination between the two wings. The separation, to start with, may be effected in towns/urban areas which have a population of ten lakhs or more, and gradually extended to smaller towns/urban areas also.

Police Establishment Board:

(5) There shall be a Police Establishment Board in each State which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Establishment Board shall be a departmental body comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department. The State Government may interfere with decision of the Board in exceptional cases only after recording its reasons for doing so. The Board shall also be authorized to make appropriate recommendations to the State Government regarding the posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police, and the Government is expected to give due weight to these recommendations and shall normally accept it. It shall also function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above regarding their promotion/transfer/disciplinary proceedings or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders and generally reviewing the functioning of the police in the State.

Police Complaints Authority:

(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired civil servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them. The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority.

National Security Commission:

(7) The Central Government shall also set up a National Security Commission at the Union level to prepare a panel for being placed before the appropriate Appointing Authority, for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO), who/should also be given a minimum tenure of two years. The Commission would also review from time to time measures to upgrade the effectiveness of these forces, improve the service conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is proper coordination between them and that the forces are generally utilized for the purposes they were raised and make recommendations in that behalf. The National Security Commission could be headed by the Union Home Minister and comprise heads of the CPOs and a couple of security experts as members with the Union Home Secretary as its Secretary.

The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the Central Government, State Governments or Union Territories, as the case may be, on or before 31st December, 2006 so that the bodies afore-noted became operational on the onset of the new year. The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of State Governments/Union Territories are directed to file affidavits of compliance by 3rd January, 2007.

Before parting, we may note another suggestion of Mr. Prashant Bhushan that directions be also issued for dealing with the cases arising out of threats emanating from international terrorism or organized crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of weapons from across the borders, counterfeiting of currency or the activities of mafia groups with trans-national links to be treated as measures taken for the defense of India as mentioned in Entry I of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and as internal security measures as contemplated under Article 355 as these threats and activities aim at destabilizing the country and subverting the economy and thereby weakening its defense.

The suggestion is that the investigation of above cases involving inter-state or international ramifications deserves to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The suggestion, on the face of it, seems quite useful. But, unlike the aforesaid aspects which were extensively studied and examined by various experts and reports submitted and about which for that reason, we had no difficulty in issuing directions, there has not been much study or material before us, on the basis whereof we could safely issue the direction as suggested. For considering this suggestion, it is necessary to enlist the views of expert bodies. We, therefore, request the National Human Rights Commission, Sorabjee Committee and Bureau of Police Research and Development to examine the aforesaid suggestion of Mr. Bhushan and assist this Court by filing their considered views within four months. The Central Government is also directed to examine this suggestion and submit its views within that time.

Further suggestion regarding monitoring of the aforesaid directions that have been issued either by National Human Rights Commission or the Police Bureau would be considered on filing of compliance affidavits whereupon the matter shallbe listed before the Court.

Judgement Confirmed on Jan 11, 2007

ITEM No.3 Court No. 1 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.310 OF 1996
PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I. & ORS. Respondent (s)

(With appln.(s) for extension of time and clarification/modification ofCourt's order and directions)
Date : 11/01/2007 The Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKERHON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
For Respondent (s) Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, ASG, Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Adv, Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv, Mr. Vikas Singh, ASG, Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv, Mr. R.C. Kathia, Adv, Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv, Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv, Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv, Ms. Pooja Matlani, Adv, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr.Adv, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv, Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr.Adv, Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv, Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv, Mr. K.N. Balagopal, AG of Nagaland, Mr. S. Balaji, Adv, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AAG, Mr. Naveen Kr. Singh, Adv, Mr. Mukul Sood, Adv, Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Adv, Mr. D.P.Singh, Adv, Mr. A.K. Sinha, Adv, Mr. J.S. Attri, AAG, HP, Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Adv, Mr. Shekhar Nafade, Adv, Mr. Ravindra Adsure, Adv, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv, Mr. Anil K. Mishra, Adv, Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv, Mr. Sashidhar, Adv, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv, Mr. Atul Jha, Adv, Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Adv, Ms. Minakshi Sarma, Adv.for M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advs, Mr. Sonam P.Wangdi, AG, Sikkim, Mr. A.Mariarputham, Adv, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Adv.for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs, Mr. V.G.Pragasam, Adv, Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv, Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Adv, Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv, Mr. Ajay Siwach, Adv, Mr. T.V. George, Adv, Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, Adv, Mr. David Rao, Adv, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr.Adv, Mrs. H. Wahi, Adv, Ms. Shivangi, Adv, Mr. Kumar Amit, Adv, Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv, Mr. R. Sathish, Adv, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv, Mr. D.S.Mahra, Adv, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv, Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv, Mr. Nishakant Pandey, Adv, Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv, Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv, Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv, Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv, Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv, Mr. T.L.V. Iyer,Sr.Adv, Mr. P.V. Dinesh,Adv, Mr. H.K. Puri, Adv, Mr. Shri Narain,Adv.for M/s. S. Narain & Co., Advs, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv, Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv, Mr. J.K. Das, Adv, Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, Adv, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv, Mr. Mohanprasad Meharia, Adv, Mr. K.K. Rai, Adv, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv, Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv, Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv,
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Urgent need to usher in police reforms has been receiving attention of all concerned Governments, authorities and bodies for about three decades. Various Commissions and Committees were set up which gave their reports. As far back as in November, 1977, the Government of India had appointed National Police Commission which gave reports in number of volumes after examining the matter from various angles for nearly four years. A petition filed in this Court ultimately resulted in issue of directions by judgement and order dated 22nd September, 2006, in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs.Union of India & Ors. (2006 (8 ) S.C.C.1). The judgement refers to the reports of the National Police Commission and other committees. It, inter alia, notices that the commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law. In fact, none disputed then or now the need to introduce the police reforms. It also cannot be seriously questioned that these reforms have to be introduced very expeditiously now. The judgement further notices that the supervision and control has to be any regard, whatsoever, to the status or position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. It's role has to be defined so that, in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, rule of law becomes a casualty, guilty police officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay. The directions in the judgement were issued after hearing, besides counsel for the petitioner, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel representing National Human Rights Commission, Ms. Swati Meta, learned counsel appearing for Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives. It is pertinent to note that notice of the petition was given to all the State Governments/Union Territories. When the arguments were heard, none of the State Governments/Union Territories made any submission or suggestion that the suggestions given in the reports either by the National Human Rights Commission or in Rebeiro Committee or Sorabjee Committee or in the Police Commission be not accepted. Same position was taken by the learned Solicitor General who appeared for the Government of India in the matter. Reference has also been made to a letter that was sent by a Union Home Minister in the year 1997 to the State Governments revealing a distressing situation and expressing the views that, if rule of law has to prevail, the situation must be cured. After perusing various reports, directions were issued to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance thereof on or before 31st December, 2006, so that the bodies directed to be constituted become operational on the on-set of the new year. The top bureaucrats in the Central Government/State Governments/Union Territories were directed to file affidavits of compliance by 3rd January, 2007. Considering that every one concerned realises the need of expeditious introduction of police reforms, we were fairly hopeful that three months' time was sufficient to comply with the directions issued on 22nd September, 2006. Some of the State Governments have complied with some directions but none, except State of Sikkim, has complied with all the directions. We have heard Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned counsel for the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for National Capital Territory of Delhi, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and other counsel appearing for some other States, like Nagaland. We have also heard submissions made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Swati Mehta, learned counsel Though directions ought to have been complied within the time frame already granted but now prayer has been made for grant of further time. At the outset, we wish to make it clear that by indirect method or in the garb of filing affidavits or I.A. No.16 filed by the State of Jharkhand and other applications filed by other States seeking modification, we cannot permit review of our judgement and order dated 22nd September, 2006. There is a proper procedure for seeking review on permissible grounds only. In this connection, it becomes important to again note that the matter was heard for number of days and practically no State Government/Union Territories objected to the suggestions contained in various reports. In this view, we would only consider the prayer for grant of further time to comply with such of the directions for which steps may have to be taken by the Central Government/State Governments/Union Territories.

Direction No.2 relates to the selection and minimum tenure of the Director General of Police;
Direction No.3 relates to the minimum tenure of the Inspector General of Police and other officers; and
Direction No.5 by itself provides for the composition of the Police Establishment Board.
Insofar as these three directions are concerned, they are self-executory and no question of grant of further time, therefore, arises. Whatever steps have to be taken should be taken forthwith and, in any case, not later than four weeks from today.

In regard to Direction No.1 relating to the State Security Commission, Direction No.4 in relation to separation of investigating from law and order and Direction No.6 in relation to Police Complaints Authority, having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the State Governments, we extend the time for compliance till 31st March, 2007.

If any State Government has constituted any Commission or Authority, which is not in conformity with the direction of this Court within the extended time, it will constitute such a Commission or Authority in terms of the directions of this Court. With regard to the National Security Commission, we have perused the Notification dated 2nd January, 2007. It is strictly not in accordance with the direction given by this Court. To constitute a State Commission in terms of our direction, further time up to 31st March, 2007, is granted to the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid orders, the time is, accordingly, allowed and insofar as other reliefs are concerned, the applications are dismissed since we have already noted that review of a judgement cannot be ordered in the garb of modification of the order. We direct the same officers, as mentioned in Paragraph (31) of the judgement dated 22nd September, 2006, to file the requisite affidavits of compliance by 10th April, 2007. We may, however, state that the elections have been ordered in any State would not be ground not to comply with the directions in the time-frame in this order.
[ T.I. Rajput ] [ V.P. Tyagi ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.310 OF 1996
PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. …PETITIONER(S)/ APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
I.A.NO. 115064/2018, I.A.NO. 20735/2019, I.A.NO.11484/2019

JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI
I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019

1. On an earlier occasion, this Court had the occasion to deal with another application for clarification of this Court’s order dated 3rd July, 2018 [i.e. I.A. No.144172 of 2018] though in a different context. While passing the order on the said I.A. on 16.1.2019, this Court referring to the principles underlying the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

1. had specifically noticed the relevant directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which are in the following terms: “Selection and minimum tenure of DGP.
2. The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his duties.”

2. Thereafter this Court took note of the fact that different States have enacted their respective Police Acts and/or have carried out further amendments in their 1 (2006) 8 SCC 1 respective Police Acts. However, all such amendments did not wholly follow the dictum laid down by this court in Prakash Singh (supra). This had led to filing of writ petition (i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 challenging the validity of the provisions of Police Acts enacted by different States.

3. Primary ground of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 is that the enactments are not in tune or rather negate the directions of this Court in Prakash Singh (supra).

4. The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for adequate clarification of the directions contained in the order dated 3rd July, 2018, (passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996) which are extracted below. Specifically, the directions in clauses (e) and (f) have been argued to be necessary to be clarified by this Court.

“(a) All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police;

(b) The Union Public Service Commission shall prepare the panel as per the directions of this Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case(supra) and intimate to the States;

(c) The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission;

(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of Director General of Police on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh’s case(supra);

(e) An endeavour has to be made by all concerned to see that the person who was selected and appointed as the Director General of Police continues despite his date of superannuation. However, the extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable period. We say so as it has been brought to our notice that some of the States have adopted a practice to appoint the Director General of Police on the last date of retirement as a consequence of which the person continues for two years after his date of superannuation. Such a practice will not be in conformity with the spirit of the direction.

(f) Our direction No.(c) should be considered by the Union Public Service Commission to mean that the persons are to be empanelled, as far as practicable, from amongst the people within the zone of consideration who have got clear two years of service. Merit and seniority should be given due weightage.

(g) Any legislation/rule framed by any of the States or the Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance to the aforesaid extent.”
[emphasis supplied)

5. The grievance raised by the applicants/petitions is two-fold.
To do away with the practice of States appointing the Director General of Police on the last date of the normal tenure of an incumbent “so as to ensure that such incumbents get extended term of two years in view of the directions of this Court contained in Prakash Singh (supra)” clarifications were issued by this court by order dated 3rd July, 2018 in paragraph (e) and (f), quoted above. The said directions do not seem to have ended the controversy inasmuch as it is now the grievance of the applicants/petitioners that the Union Public Service Commission while empanelling officers for consideration for appointment to the post of Director General of Police is considering the minimum residual tenure required to be taken into account as two years. In the process, according to the applicant, many suitable and eligible officers are being left out.

6. Having read and considered the decision of this court in Prakash Singh (supra) we are of the view that what was emphasized in Prakash Singh (supra) is a minimum tenure of two years for an incumbent once he is appointed as the Director General of Police. The direction issued by this Court neither contemplated the appointment of a Director General of Police on the eve of his retirement nor the practice now adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in making the empanelment, i.e. empanelling officers who have at least two years of tenure.

7. Neither of the aforesaid practice, in our considered view, can further the directions of this Court in Prakash Singh (supra) or give impetus to what this Court had in mind in issuing the directions in Prakash Singh (supra), namely, that the appointment of a Director General of Police in a State should be purely on the basis of merit and to insulate the said office from all kinds of influences and pressures, once appointed the incumbent should get a minimum tenure of two years of service irrespective of his date of superannuation.

8. Neither this Court had contemplated recommendation for appointment of officers who are on the verge of retirement or appointment of officers who have a minimum residual tenure of two years. The emphasis was to select the best and to ensure a minimum tenure of two years’ service of such officer who is to be selected and appointed. The Police Acts enacted also do not contemplate any fixed residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for appointment as the Director General of Police of a State. In the above conspectus the object in issuing the directions in Prakash Singh (supra), in our considered view, can best be achieved if the residual tenure of an officer i.e. remaining period of service till normal retirement, is fixed on a reasonable basis, which, in our considered view, should be a period of six months.

9. This will take care of any possible action on the part of the State Government which can be viewed by any quarter as an act of favouritism. Recommendations for appointment of the Director General of Police on the eve of retirement of the incumbent or of the Union Public Service Commission in embarking upon a course of action which may have the effect of overlooking efficient and eligible officers will stand obviated by the above direction which we had deemed to be fit and proper to issue.

10. We, therefore, clarify the order of this Court dated 3^rd July, 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996 to mean that recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.

11. The above direction, naturally, will hold the field until the validity of the Police Acts in force which provides to the contrary are examined and dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013.

12. All the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in terms of the above.

CJI
[RANJAN GOGOI]

J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

J
[SANJIV KHANNA]

NEW DELHI
MARCH 13, 2019

Justice Thomas Committee & Justice Verma Committee Reports

The Background:

In the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the above Writ Petition, delivered on 22.09.2006, seven directives were issued to the Central Government and State Governments (including the Union Territories), for compliance towards reforming the functioning of the Police in India. The seven directives, in brief, mandated:

1. Constitution of a State Security Commission in every State as a watchdog body to oversee the functioning of the police, with its recommendations being binding on the State Government.
2. Selection of the State Director General of Police from out of a panel prepared by UPSC, and provision for a minimum tenure of two years for the DGP so selected, irrespective of his date of superannuation, except under circumstances specified in the directive.
3. A minimum two year tenure for other police officers (Zonal IGPs, Range DIGs, District Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers), except under specified circumstances.
4. Separation of investigation from law and order, duly ensuring full coordination between the two wings.
5. Creation of Police Establishment Boards to deal with transfers, postings and other service-related matters of police officers, including disposal of their appeals on being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
6. Constitution of Police Complaints Authorities at the State and District levels to look into complaints against police officers.
7. Constitution of a National Security Commission at the Union level to prepare panels for selection of Chiefs of Central Police Organisations and to review measures to upgrade their effectiveness, etc.

2. Out of these seven directives, the first six were meant for the State Governments, while the seventh directive related to the Central Government.

3. The deadline of 31st December, 2006 was fixed initially by the Supreme Court for compliance of these directives

4. Later, the Supreme Court, by an Order dated 16.05.2008, set up this Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) to monitor the implementation of the above directives by the Governments.

Terms of Reference of the Committee

The terms of the Committee’s work were set out in the aforementioned order, as follows:

1. To examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in compliance to the Court’s directions with reference to the ground realities.
2. Advise the respondents wherever the implementation is falling short of the Court’s orders, after considering the respondents’ stated difficulties in implementation.
3. Bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems the respondents may be having in view of the specific conditions prevailing in a State or Union Territory.
4. Examine the new legislations enacted by different States regarding the police to see whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of this Court’s directions.
5. Apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any respondent so that appropriate follow up action could be taken against that respondent.
6. Submit a status report on compliance to this Court every six months.

Interim Reports of the Committee

6. The Committee held several sittings at New Delhi and elsewhere in the States. Four interim reports of the Committee have already been field before the Supreme Court – the first report is dated 20.10.2008, the second report dated 02.05.2009, the third one dated 15.09.2009 and the fourth report is dated 19.12.2009. Copies of these interim reports are placed at Annexure-VII.

Part II
Methodology of Work adopted by the Committee

Study of the available material

7. The Committee, to begin with, decided to study all the available documents, including the affidavits filed by the Central and State Governments before the Supreme Court from time to time, after obtaining the same from the Registry of the Supreme Court. It also decided to take stock of the New Police Acts legislated by some of the States, in order to review as to whether or not they conformed to the Supreme Court guidelines on the subject. All these documents were surveyed by the Committee in detail.

8. The Committee availed itself of the services of Shri P. Venugopal, former Administrative Officer of the National Police Academy for compiling (i) the information contained in the affidavits submitted by the Governments, (ii) the relevant provisions of the new police legislations passed by some States and (iii) the contents of the executive orders passed by the remaining State Governments in compliance of the Supreme Court directives. He did the work very exhaustively. The Committee was very much benefited by his work.

Seeking updates from the States

9. The Committee also decided to obtain factual updates from the Governments regarding the latest state of implementation of the directives. For this purpose, the Chairman of the Committee addressed, on 26.11.2008, individual letters to the Chief Ministers of all the States as also the Union Home Minister, seeking information from them in two different proformas, one from the States which had passed new Police legislations, and the other from those States/ UTs that had sought to implement the directives through other available mechanisms, such as passing executive orders.

10. The responses to these letters varied from State to State, both in terms of time taken to respond and regarding the sufficiency of information provided.

Other Inputs received by the Committee

11. The Committee also permitted civil society organizations which were willing to make any submission, to do so during its sittings and the response was, by and large, good. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) was the main among such organizations whose representatives attended practically all the sittings and presented detailed submissions, including elaborate analysis of the status of implementation of the directives by the States, both in writing and orally. As the petitioner in the Writ Petition, Shri Prakash Singh, expressed his willingness to assist the Committee with his views, we permitted him to do so. On behalf of a movement called “Centre for Criminal Justice Research”, Dr. P.J. Alexander, former DGP, Kerala State, presented a “Draft Kerala Police Bill”, prepared by his organization in consultation with Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was claimed that the said draft would comply with all the directives issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case. The Committee forwarded the same to the Home Minister of Kerala State for follow up action as deemed appropriate by the State Government.

Second round of letters to Chief Ministers

All the information available to the Committee, relating to the status of implementation of Supreme Court directives, including that received from the State Governments, was thoroughly analysed to assess the level of compliance of the directives by them. A second round of letters was thereafter issued to Chief Ministers of the States which had not passed legislations, pointing out the deviations and deficiencies in the executive orders issued by their governments in the implementation of the Supreme Court directives. The response to these letters was also, however, indifferent.

Ground verification of compliance

13. For checking the ground realities of implementation, the Committee felt that this was a province which required detailed enquiry and consideration. At the same time, visiting all the 28 States and 7 Union Territories would be an uphill task besides being highly time consuming. The Committee felt that in the short time now available before the expiry of its term of two years, it would be impossible for it to visit all the States and UTs. As a feasible course, it, therefore, decided to choose one State each from the four different zones of the country for sample verification of ground-level compliance. The States so chosen were: Maharashtra (West Zone), Uttar Pradesh (North Zone), Karnataka (South Zone) and West Bengal (East Zone), all of which in the Committee’s assessment were also defaulters, besides being populous. Accordingly, two members of the Committee visited these four States.

Representation addressed to the Committee by one Narersh Kumar and two others

14. During its last meeting held at Kochi on 15-16.07.2010, the Committee received a representation dated 15.06.2010 signed by one Shri Naresh Kumar and two other individuals, handed over in person to Smt. Meera Hemant, Secretary to the Committee, which quoted the following order dated 23.04.2010 of the Supreme Court in a petition filed by those petitioners:

“The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Commission by way of a representation and raise grievances, if any, mentioned in the Writ Petition with a copy to learned Amicus Curiae. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn”.

15. After perusing the relevant averments and the prayers contained in the representation, it appeared to the Committee that the relief sought by the petitioners entails modification of the original directives of the Supreme Court issued in Prakash Singh case, on 22.09.2006. As such the matter falls outside the ambit of this Committee’s work.

Part III
Approach of the Committee to its Terms of Reference

16. The Committee adopted the following approach in dealing with the various Terms of Reference set out by the Supreme Court’s Order dated 16.05.2008:

• As for Term of Reference No.1, namely, to examine the affidavits of the States vis-à-vis the ground realities, the Committee, as mentioned above, decided to choose only one State each from the four geographical zones of the country. The Chairman addressed letters to the Chief Ministers of those four States, calling for the requisite information regarding the status of ground level implementation of Supreme Court directives, in a proforma, and also requesting them to render all assistance to the members of the Committee visiting the States.
• On the second term of reference, namely, advising the States in which the implementation was falling short of the Court’s directives, after considering the respondents’ stated difficulties in implementation, the Chairman wrote letters to the Chief Ministers (referred to as the second round of letters in para 12 above), pointing out the deficiencies / deviations in implementation and advising them to rectify the same. (Copies of these letters are placed at Annexure-VI). Advices tendered through these letters were on the following broad lines:
  • To those States which had not fully complied with the directives (while claiming full compliance at the same time) but had not expressed any specific difficulty in doing so, the Committee pointed out the areas of deviations and advised the Chief Ministers concerned to cover up the areas of such deviations / shortfalls.
  • To the States which had drafted the proposed legislations purportedly in compliance with the directives but had yet to complete the legislative process, the Committee attempted to persuade their governments to ensure immediate compliance, in the interim, at least through issuing executive orders.
  • To the States which had issued executive orders peripherally short of fully complying with the directives, the Committee informed the Chief Ministers that the executive orders issued by their governments purporting to comply with the Supreme Court directives would have to be interpreted in the same manner as intended by the court, and that it was on the said presumption that the Committee was choosing to refrain from treating such States as defaulters in complying with the directives.
  • To those States which showed major areas of non-compliance, while still reiterating their objections already mentioned in their earlier affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, the Committee took the view that such objections had already been considered by the Supreme Court and rejected. We, therefore, advised the Chief Ministers of such States to comply with the directives forthwith.
• Regarding the third term of reference, namely, to bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems of the respondents in view of any specific conditions, the Committee reported some such problems which came to its notice, in its Second Report submitted to the Supreme Court, dated 02.05.2009. A more detailed account of such problems as highlighted by the States, is given in Part Four of this report.
• As for the fourth term of reference, namely, to examine the new legislations to see whether they are in compliance with the Directives, in the Committee’s view the said term is one of reporting function, particularly in view of the following observation of the Supreme Court in the main judgment in Prakash Singh case:“The decision in Vineet Narain’s case notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be observed were issued in the absence of legislation and implemented till the legislatures passed appropriate legislations”. The Committee found that as many as 12 States had passed new police legislations. It examined all those legislations. The assessment made by the Committee on these new police legislations passed by those 12 States is included in Annexure II of this report.
• Regarding the fifth term of reference, i.e., to apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any State, the Committee’s findings are detailed in Part Five of this report.

Part IV
States’ Stated Difficulties in Implementation of Directives

17. The Committee would now highlight the following areas of concern/ difficulties generic to most of the States, as pointed out by most of the state governments. The Committee’s own assessment on each of these issues is also mentioned alongside:

• Implementation of the Directive to involve UPSC in the empanelment process (for the post of DGP) is beyond the scope and authority of the state governments. The Committee has already reported this matter to the Supreme Court in its second interim report. The Committee is since given to understand that this issue has now become a subject matter of an interlocutory application pending before the Supreme Court in the main Writ Petition.
• Regarding the direction to provide a minimum tenure of two years to DGP, irrespective of the date of superannuation, the state governments projected their inability in its implementation on the ground that the said subject belongs to the domain of the All India Service Rules, which are framed by the Union Government. The Supreme Court may examine this issue.
• The management of IPS Cadre in some of the small States, like Goa, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, is administered through a Joint Cadre Authority under the Union Home Ministry. Thus, the state government in such States cannot, on their own, fully comply with the Directive to accord minimum tenure to the officers (those belonging to IPS) and in the selection of DGP.
• Practical difficulties were expressed by some of the states of smaller size for establishing separate district level Police Complaints Authorities, referred to in Directive No. 6 in the main judgment. According to those states, a single Authority at the state level would be good enough for all districts also. The Committee’s view is that looking at it from the governmental angle, this difficulty may look genuine in some cases. But people living in distant regions in the State, far away from the state capital, may find it difficult to voice their grievances by undertaking a journey to such capitals.
• Some States, particularly Uttar Pradesh, put forward the view that the existing multiplicity of authorities for Police accountability (such as National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission, SC/ST Commission, Women’s Commission and Minorities Commission etc.) obviates the necessity of having one more separate mechanism for police accountability, in the form of Police Complaints Authority, envisaged in Directive No. 6. The civil society representatives, on the other hand, expressed the view that all those multiple authorities did not have binding powers and also that there was need to have a body solely focusing on police misconduct, as envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. It is for the Supreme Court to consider whether any further clarification is needed in the matter.
• As for Directive No. 1 (establishment of State Security Commission - SSC), the Committee, in its second report, has already sought clarification of the Hon’ble Court on the variations in the composition of the Commission, between the recommendations of the Soli Sorabjee Committee and the text in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, specifically on the issue of inclusion of a retired High Court Judge in the State Police Board / State Security Commission and so also the mention of DGP being as ex-officio Secretary and not Member Secretary of the State Police Board / State Security Commission.
• Further, the Committee found that a common SSC has been set up for all the seven Union Territories including Delhi, with the Union Home Secretary as its Chairman. The Committee would urge the Supreme Court to clarify whether a separate SSC is required for each Union Territory.

Part V
Findings and Conclusions

18. Insofar as the implementation of the six specific Directives of the Supreme Court is concerned, the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that practically no State has fully complied with those Directives so far, in letter and spirit, despite the lapse of almost four years since the date of the original judgment. In the States, where new police legislations have not been enacted, the directions are purported to have been complied with by issuing executive orders but the contents of such executive orders clearly reflect dilution, in varying degrees, of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Court directives.

19. This is reflected by Annexure I which gives a snapshot of the actual levels of compliance in respect of each of the Supreme Court directives, by the States which have adopted the mechanism of issuing executive orders. Annexure II, which contains the Committee’s assessment of the relevant provisions of the new police legislations enacted by 12 States, reflects the same story.

20. In the executive orders issued by many States as well as in the new police legislations passed by some States, the composition of the State Security Commission (Directive No. 1) reflects deviation by way of exclusion of either the Leader of the Opposition or the judicial element or both. Even in the matter of the ratio between the official and non-official members, we noticed the numerical majority in many cases being kept in favour of officials over non-officials.

21. Regarding the selection of DGP (Directive No. 2), notwithstanding the afore-mentioned difficulty in involving the UPSC for empanelment of officers, most of the States have been sticking to the earlier-existing procedure of selection, without even laying down any merit-based, transparent criteria for the same. As for the tenure of DGP, most States have side-stepped the core of the Supreme Court directive.

22. The Committee observed that there was near uniformity among all the States in not following Directive No. 3, which relates to provision for a fixed tenure for certain categories of police officers, in the manner envisaged by the Supreme Court.

23. As for Directive No. 4 (separation of investigation from law & order), provision has, albeit, been made in the executive orders, in most of the States, but those remain only on paper so far. No concrete steps seem to have been taken to implement the directive on the ground level. Indeed, such separation would involve some augmentation of police manpower and this has been projected as a ‘difficulty’ by some state governments. Some others have, on the other hand, taken steps to sanction additional manpower and promised that the separation would be effectively implemented once the new manpower is in place after recruitment and training. For details, see Annexures I & II.

24. The Police Establishment Boards (Directive No. 5) have been created in most of the States but their effectiveness has been persistently questioned by the civil society groups in their representations made before the Committee. The ground-situation of transfers in the four States where sample checks were made by the Committee (UP, Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal) was found to be suggestive of uncertainty of tenures in the transfers and postings of police officers (For details, see Annexures III, IV & V).

25. The Police Complaints Authorities (Directive No. 6) have not been created in most of the States so far (for details see Annexure I). Civil society groups have represented that even in the States which have claimed compliance to this directive, the said Authorities have yet to be put in place at the ground level.

26. Further, the Committee has noticed that some State Governments (for example, Tamilnadu) have introduced legislative Bills, purportedly in compliance of the Supreme Court’s directives, but while the Bills have yet to be passed by their Legislatures, in the executive orders issued by the State Governments in the interregnum, the provisions of even the proposed Bills have been diluted. Pending passage of the Bills by the Legislature, the State Governments may be asked by the Supreme Court to modify such executive orders to bring the same in accordance with their own proposed Bills, without further delay.

27. For checking of ground realities of implementation of the directives, the Committee, as stated earlier, took up the task in respect of four States located in four different geographical zones. The reports on this sample verification are placed in Annexure III (UP and Maharashtra), Annexure IV (Karnataka), and Annexure V (West Bengal). It can be seen from these Annexures that the level of compliance of the Supreme Court directives in these States is ranging from total non-compliance to partial or marginal compliance to mere paper implementation. The Supreme Court, to begin with, may, therefore, initiate action as deemed appropriate, against these States.

28. As for the remaining States, it is for the Supreme Court to decide on the course and modalities of such verification, to assess the exact level of compliance of the directives by them, before deciding on the action to be taken in respect of them.

29. In the end, the Committee, while reiterating its earlier observation about the indifferent response of most of the State Governments, in spite of the letters and reminders addressed to the Chief Ministers personally by the Chairman, would like to express its dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being exhibited by the States.

30. Proper functioning of police forces is crucial for the rule of law to prevail in any society. It is also a critical requisite for ensuring the Fundamental Rights of the people enshrined and guaranteed under our Constitution. The indifference of the State Governments to the issue of police reforms and non-compliance of the Directives of the Supreme Court in this regard, despite the tenacious efforts made by the Committee within the boundaries of its limited mandate, have to be viewed in that perspective.

(Justice K.T.Thomas)
Chairman

(Kamal Kumar)	(Dharmendra Sharma)
Member	Member

Justice Verma Committee

Justice J.S. Verma Committee, which was constituted in the wake of the brutal gang rape in Delhi on December 16, 2012,submitted a comprehensive report on Amendments to Criminal Law. The Committee regretted that “the Supreme Court’s judgment of 2006 in Prakash Singh’s case giving certain directions for the autonomy and improving the quality of the police force remain to be implemented by all the governments” and emphasized that “action in this behalf does not brook any further delay”. In Chapter XII of the Report, which deals exclusively with Police Reforms, the Committee expressed the view that “ensuring full compliance with this judgment across all of India is of utmost priority to national welfare; including the welfare of women and children and towards the weaker sections of the community”, and urged “all states to fully comply with all six Supreme Court directives in order to tackle systemic problems in policing which exist today”. It further made the following observations:

“We believe that if the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh are implemented, there will be a crucial modernization of the police to be service oriented for the citizenry in a manner which is efficient, scientific, and consistent with human dignity.”

INDIAN POLICE: 150 YEARS OF SERFDOM

Prakash Singh
(The article was published in The Asian Age under the caption ‘When Khaki Fades’ on Feb 26, 2012)

The Indian Police, whose structural framework was defined in 1861, has completed 150 years of its existence. Normally, this would have called for some kind of celebration. But there is hardly any talk of observing the anniversary. Reason is not far to seek? These have been years of serfdom for the police. The British raised a police which would be “politically useful” to the imperial masters. It would enable them keep the Empire in tact. The police would carry out their orders, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, constitutional or otherwise. Tragically, the arrangement has continued even after independence.

The country has paid a very heavy price for the political stranglehold over the police. There have been three tragedies at the national level which could either have been averted or, at least, their severity could have been minimised. These were: the 1984 riots when Sikhs were massacred in Delhi and the police did not take effective action because the hoodlums belonged to the ruling party; the demolition of the disputed shrine at Ayodhya in 1994 notwithstanding the formidable presence of state and central paramilitary forces at the location; and the Gujarat riots in 2002 when the police did not play its mandated role to curb the conflagration. How many more such tragedies are going to be enacted before the country wakes up to the seriousness of police reform?

It is one of the ironies of modern India that while we are preparing to send a mission to the moon, while there has been a revolution in information technology, while there has been vast improvement in the rail and road network across the country, while we have taken a quantum leap in nuclear science, while we have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, we are yet – more than six decades after independence – saddled with a colonial police with a feudal mindset. There have been any number of Commissions, both at the state and central levels – State Police Commissions, National Police Commission, Gore Committee, Ribeiro Committee, Padmanabhaiah Committee, Malimath Committee, to name only a few - which made recommendations for reforms, but these received no more than cosmetic treatment with the result that the common man does not feel secure or protected – on the contrary, he may be harassed or even persecuted by the police if takes a stand against the establishment.

There are more than 20,000 police stations and posts across the length and breadth of the country, and their working impinges on the life of the common man from Srinagar to Kanyakumari and from Ahmedabad to Aizwal irrespective of whether he has a complaint or not. It is a sad commentary on our Republic that we have not been able to transform the police into an instrument of service upholding the Rule of Law and inspiring confidence among the people.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment on Sept. 22, 2006, 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: State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police; Police Establishment Board to decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of junior officers; and Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to inquiring into allegations of serious 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 UPSC, and that he shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the IG Zone, 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 ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government was asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

The aforesaid orders were to be implemented by March 31, 2007. The Thomas Committee which was appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of its directions in the various states, in its report dated August 23, 2010, expressed “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being exhibited by the States.”

The Supreme Court directions, it needs to be highlighted, are not for the glory of the police - they are to give better security and protection to the people of the country, uphold their human rights and generally improve governance. If sincerely implemented, the Ruler’s Police would be transformed into People’s Police.

It is obvious that unless the judiciary cracks the whip and makes an example of one or two non-compliant states, things would not move and the much needed reforms would remain an aspiration only. It is essential that public opinion is also mobilized to put pressure on the executive to accelerate the process of police reforms. Media should also pitch in and make its contribution.

The stakes are very high. The challenges on the law and order front are becoming grim with every passing day. Organized crime is spreading its tentacles. Maoists pose a formidable challenge. The terrorist threat is extremely serious and has the potential to destabilse the country. We cannot face formidable challenges of the present times with a police force which was raised to meet the challenges of a medieval past. Our first line of defence has to be strengthened. Its capabilities have to be substantially augmented. There s no room for delay or complacency.

 

Needed, a movement for people’s police

V.BALACHANDRAN
(Published in The Sunday Guardian on September 23,2012)

Sometime in July 1997, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Gopinath Munde called me for discussions on how to improve the police's intelligence collection. That was the time when the Shiv Sena-BJP government and the Mumbai police were accused of various lapses after 10 deaths in the "Ramabai Nagar" firing (11 July 1997). I told him that the only way intelligence branches could be improved was by not treating them as a dump yard of unwanted officers, but by raising their morale as an elite branch, which used to be the case in the 1970s. The same advice was given by retired senior police officers who were invited by Maharashtra Home Minister R.R. Patil on 12 September to discuss policing in the state. They advised him to raise the morale of the police department by conferring the state police chief with adequate powers to discharge his responsibility, rather than treating him like an appendage of the Home Department, which decides even transfers of junior police officials.

"Morale" is best defined as "the spirit, as of dedication to a common goal that unites a group". Morale in the uniformed services implies a clear chain of command, confidence of the lower ranks in their leader and the feeling that they are moving in the right direction. It also means empowerment of the leader to carry out his responsibilities. Accountability in uniformed service arises only when the leader is able to reward those who excel in their duties or punish those who deviate. When Sir Robert Peel set up the first organised police force in London in 1829, the basic philosophy was "public approval of police actions". This was not the case when the Indian police was created after the 1857 mutiny as a coercive instrument to suppress dissent. The 1861 Indian Police Act laid down their responsibility only to their colonial masters, not to the public. After Independence, our politicians usurped the role of colonial masters and made Indian police their coercive instrument. More and more power was taken away from police chiefs. Home ministers, assisted by faceless and unapproachable bureaucrats, started controlling the police. Hence a junior police officer felt no obligation to do his duties according to law or to get public approval. All he had to do was to please the politicians.

The National Police Commission (NPC-1979-1981), which was set up after the abuses of the Emergency, recommended measures towards professionalism and achieving a "people's police", which would be responsible only to law by insulating the police from total control by politicians. No government implemented these recommendations. It was left to former BSF director general Prakash Singh to wage a lone battle against the governments by moving the Supreme Court in 1996. On 22 September 2006, the apex court gave specific directives to the state governments. In 2008, the court asked Justice (retired) K.T. Thomas to monitor the implementation of these directives. Sadly, Justice Thomas reported in 2010 that "no State has fully complied with those Directives so far, in letter and spirit, despite the lapse of almost four years since the date of the original judgment". On the contrary, states like Maharashtra have taken away even the existing powers from the police chief, such as the transfer of junior employees. It is thus clear that no political party wants to have a people friendly police in the same way as they are disinclined to codify an effective anti-corruption body.

Where do we go from here? Could the police leadership on their own achieve a "people's police" without help from politicians? I believe they can. First, the public should feel confident about being courteously received at police stations. Second, they should resist the temptation to use every drastic provision in our colonial statute book such as "sedition" or "waging war against the nation" against those who might merely be exercising their fundamental right of expressing dissent without violence, examples being the Kudankulam and Mumbai cartoon protests. Third, they should never follow the former Ahmedabad police commissioner's example of launching sedition cases against a national daily for criticising him, for which he was rapped by the Gujarat High court (April 2012). Retired police officers and NGOs should start a campaign to observe 22 September as "Movement for People's Police" and remind their governments of broken promises.

 

Caught in a time warp: With police reforms stalled, political pressure remains biggest hurdle to crime investigation

Prakash Singh
(Published in Times of India on September 18, 2019)

Home minister Amit Shah, speaking recently at a function organised by the Police Research and Development Bureau, said in British era the police was raised to protect their interests, but now the duty of police was “protection of the people”, adding that since Independence more than 34,000 policemen across the country lost their lives in the line of duty. Shah was bang on target. But the question is: Are the police today really protecting the people or they are still obsessed with protecting the rulers and safeguarding their interests?

There have been any number of commissions at the central and state levels which have identified the malaise of political interference in the day-to-day functioning of police. The National Police Commission reported, as far back as 1979, “The relationship that existed between the police and the foreign power before Independence was allowed to continue with the only change that the foreign power was substituted by the political party in power.”

Indrajit Gupta, the only home minister (1996-98) who took up the cause of police reforms sincerely, in a letter dated April 3, 1997, and addressed to chief ministers of all states said, “Time has come when all of us may have to rise above our limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police.” He went on to exhort the CMs to “break out of our colonial system of policing and bring about certain reforms and structural changes … in the administration of criminal justice in general and police functioning and practices in particular.”

The Status of Policing in India Report 2019 released recently by Common Cause, a reputed NGO, and the Centre for Study of Developing Societies also brought out that “political pressure continues to remain one of the biggest hurdles in crime investigation for the police”.

It was to deal with these and related problems that the Supreme Court gave a historic judgment on September 22, 2006, directing state governments to set up three new institutions: State Security Commission to insulate the police from extraneous pressures; Police Establishment Board to give autonomy to police in personnel matters; and Complaints Authorities to ensure a higher level of accountability by the police. Besides, it prescribed a transparent procedure for the selection of director general of police, giving him and other supervisory officers in the field two-year tenure, and laying down that investigation and law and order be separated in the metropolitan towns.

The directions were to be implemented by the end of 2006. However, 13 years have passed and the states are still dragging their feet.

Police reforms cover a much wider spectrum beyond the directions of the Supreme Court. There is huge shortage of manpower with more than five lakh vacancies, which need to be filled up. Infrastructure is deficient. Transport is inadequate. Housing facilities are dismal. Forensic support is minimal. Communication network is inadequate; we may be a formidable IT power but there are police stations in the country which have neither a telephone nor a wireless set.

Police reforms, it needs to be emphasised, are not for the glory of the police. These are to improve governance, make the police more accountable and create an environment where police considers upholding the rule of law as its paramount duty.

What is at stake? The democratic structure may itself collapse if police are not able to take lawful action against certain categories of criminals just because they have political clout. Unfortunately, such elements are managing to enter Parliament in increasing numbers.

We claim to have one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Sustained economic progress, however, requires stable law and order. According to an estimate, internal violence and external threats cost India nearly 9% of its GDP.

Besides, there are serious internal security challenges in different parts of the country - in J&K, in the north-east, and in large parts of central India where Maoists have spread their influence. The Centre has been extending massive assistance to state governments to deal with these, but with very limited success. This has been because of a fundamental flaw in our tactical approach.

Success in counterinsurgency depends on local police being in the vanguard of the battle while outside forces play a supplementary role. In India, it is the other way round. States think that it is Centre’s problem and the CAPF should be leading the charge. And so, the conflicts continue interminably. It is high time that the states are made to develop the capabilities of their police to be able to meet the challenges.

Thus, looked at from any point of view - improving control over crime, general law and order, preserving democracy, sustaining economic progress or dealing with internal security challenges – there is no getting away from reforming, reorganising and restructuring state police forces and giving them the necessary resources.

The prime minister and home minister have shown great courage in taking bold initiatives in several areas. Can the country look forward to its leaders showing similar initiative to transform the police into a professional, people friendly police?

Police force: Renew, Re-arm, Reform

Prakash Singh
(Published in India Today on September 17, 2021)

It is one of the ironies of present-day India that while we are capable of sending a mission to the moon, of launching intercontinental ballistic missiles, developing a bullet train and enjoy the status of being a formidable IT power, we are still—seven decades after Independence—stuck with a police force with the same old colonial structure and a feudal mindset. It’s not that efforts have not been made in the past to modernise the police. Several commissions at the state and Central levels have made recommendations to restructure the police force. However, the state governments, which have jurisdiction over the ‘police’ and ‘law and order’, made only cosmetic changes and were averse to reforms that would insulate the police from political pressure and make it accountable to the people.

The National Police Commission (1979-1981) has observed that “the relationship that existed between the police and the foreign power before Independence was allowed to continue with the only change that the foreign power was substituted by the political party in power”. The basic law—the Police Act of 1861—remained practically unaltered and “no attempts were made to redefine the relationship between the police and the politically oriented government”.

In 2006, the Supreme Court, responding to a petition based essentially on the recommendations of the National Police Commission, issued a set of comprehensive directions to insulate the police from external pressures, give security of tenure to the police chief and officers in the field, separate investigation from law and order in metros, give autonomy to departmental officers in personnel matters and set up complaints authorities at district and state levels with a view to conducting inquiries into cases of serious misconduct by police personnel. Some states passed laws, purportedly in compliance with the judicial directions, but in fact with the intention to circumvent them, taking advantage of the proviso that the SC’s directions will be operative only till the Centre and the states “pass the requisite legislation”. The remaining states passed executive orders, but the fact is that all states violated the SC’s directions either in letter or in spirit or both.

The court’s direction to set up a security commission in every state “to ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police and to lay down the broad policy guidelines so that the state police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country” were the most important, which, if sincerely implemented, would have brought about a sea change in the working of the police. The direction regarding separation of investigation and law and order functions was the easiest and, in principle, there is no opposition to it. The states, however, plead financial constraints in increasing manpower.

We don’t need reforms for the glory of the police or to give more powers to its officers; they are meant to create an environment where the police are able to uphold the rule of law and feel accountable to the laws of the land and the people of the country. The reforms are also relevant for a healthy democracy and to sustain the momentum of economic progress.

The internal security situation of the country has always been a matter of concern. It would not be surprising if the developments in Afghanistan embolden Pakistan to push jihadis across our western borders to create mayhem in the frontier states, especially Jammu and Kashmir. It’s also possible that pro-Pak elements will create disorder in the hinterland. A well-armed, highly motivated police force, led by competent officers, who are fed timely intelligence, would be our best guarantee against the depredations of such subversive elements. The capabilities of the Central Armed Police Forces would need substantial augmentation.

Reforms, in this context, become all the more imperative. The government should give high priority to at least those reforms that do not have political implications, such as filling up vacancies and, thereby, increasing manpower, improving infrastructure in terms of transport, communications and forensics, energising the intelligence network and sharpening the technological capabilities of the police force. There is no room for delay. As Sun Tzu said, “quickness is the essence of the war”. Other reforms of a more fundamental nature may be taken up in due course of time.

States’ Report Card

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on December 31, 2020)
(In States which have issued Executive Orders)

Sl. No.	State	State Security Commission (Direction No.1)	Selection & Tenure of DGP (Direction No.2)	Tenure of other Officers (Direction No.3)	Separation of Investigation from law & order (Direction No.4)	Police Establishment Board (Direction No.5)	Police Complaints Authorities (Direction No.6)	Remarks
1	Andhra Pradesh	State Government issued order on 8.8.2013 reconstituting SSC with following members: HM, Leader of Opposition, Chief Secy., DGP and five independent members (Sorabjee Model). Recommendations of SSC would be binding. Comments. Procedure for selection of “independent members” not clarified. There is no retired Judge in the SSC. No mention of SSC preparing a Report to be tabled before State Legislature.	State Government claims to have implemented first component of direction regarding selection of DGP. Comments Asked GOI to issue clarifications / amendments to AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958. Post-bifurcation, AP passed Police (Reforms) Act, 2014 which legislates only on the appointment of DGP. Complies with SC directive except the additional sub-section of “on other administrative grounds to be recorded in writing” for the removal of DGP. This could be used arbitrarily. In December 2017, however, AP abolished the State Police Act and issued an ordinance whereby it could appoint DGP on its own without any intervention by the UPSC.	G.O. issued on 07.02.07. However, some civil society representatives who met Thomas Committee at Hyderabad on 17.7.09 alleged that transfer orders were being issued frequently in gross violation of the G.O.	State government issued order dated 8.8.2013 on the subject.	Board constituted vide G.O. dated 07.02.07. Comments Not authorized to make recommendations regarding postings / transfers of gazetted police officers. Not to function as forum of appeal on representations from officers regarding their promotion/transfer etc. or their being subjected to illegal orders. Not to review the functioning of police.	State government issued order on 8.8.2013 constituting Complaints Authority at State and District levels. Their recommendations will be binding.	Government drafted a Police Act Amendment Bill in 2008, but it was never tabled.
1 A	Telangana	Telangana High Court has been directing the State Government to constitute SSC since 2016, but there has been no forward movement.	Telangana has passed ‘Selection and Appointment of Director General of Police Act, 2018’, which states that the DGP shall be selected and appointed by the State Govt and that he shall have a minimum tenure of two years subject to retirement. Comments There is no provision of UPSC preparing the panel. Appointment of DGP is contingent on retirement and not irrespective of superannuation, as laid down by the Court				Telangana High Court has been directing the State Government to constitute PCA since 2016, but there has been no forward movement.
2	Arunachal Pradesh	Constituted vide Notification dated 27.02.07, choosing the model laid down in the Model Police Act. Comments Apart from two official members (Chief Secretary and DGP), State Govt. added two more (Home Commissioner and the IGP) in the Commission. SSC recommendations are not binding. An earlier notification issued in 2006 was fully compliant with Sorabjee Model, but that was superseded by 2007 notification.	Notification dated 18.12.06 issued, but as MHA is the cadre controlling authority, notification clarifies that after the UPSC shortlists candidates for DG, MHA is to make that available to the state government for selection of DGP.	Notification dated 18.12.06 issued. However, since the posting of IPS officers in Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by MHA, the order of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is of academic interest only.	Notification dated 27.02.07 issued, separating investigation from law and order function in nine densely populated urban police stations of Itanagar, Naharlagun, Ziro, Aalo, Pasighat, Khonsa, Bomdila, Namsai and Tezu. The earlier notification of 2006 provided for separation in seventeen police stations.	Constitution provided for, vide Notification dated 14.12.06. Comments There is no mention of PAB reviewing the functioning of police in the state.	Constitution of a State-level Authority provided for, vide Notification dated 27.02.07. Its recommendations are binding. Comments Under Secy of Vigilance Dept will serve as Secy, State PCA.This may impinge on its independence. Complaint Authorities at the district-level not provided for.	Arunachal Pradesh Police Act was drafted, but yet to be passed by legislature.
3	Goa	Constituted vide an Order dated 03.04.07 adopting the NHRC model. Comments Lokayukta or, in his absence, one more retired High Court Judge, not included in the composition, as prescribed by NHRC. Not clarified that recommendations of Board will be binding. No mention of SSC preparing report to be placed before Legislature. In its last affidavit (July 2013) State Govt. has taken the stand that this direction “affects the Constitutional distribution of powers”. The affidavit nevertheless goes on to say that in matters of investigation police should be “fully insulated from any political interference”.	No order issued. The State Government’s stand is that: Selection of DGP is done by MHA, and the State has no control over the selection as also over the tenure of the officer. MHA will be requested to ensure two years’ tenure “unless the State itself has a strong reservation” about continuance of a particular incumbent. No mention of requirement to consult SSC to remove DGP prematurely.	Officers posted in Goa are part of AGMU (Arunachal, Goa, Mizoram and UT) cadre. MHA is the cadre controlling authority. Tenure of officers is two years “unless circumstances otherwise warrant”. Comments State Govt. wants to have the prerogative to transfer officers under certain circumstances, which have not been specified	No town with 10 lakh or more of population Seven police station have nevertheless been identified for separation with respect to ten types of heinous crimes	Constituted vide Order dated 15.02.07. Comments The Order does not specifically state that the State Government would interfere with the decisions of the Board only in exceptional cases and after recording its reasons for doing so. It also does not specify that the recommendations of the Board regarding the postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP shall be given due weightage by the State Government and normally accepted. No mention of PEB reviewing the functioning of police in the state. On Aug. 18, 2014, Goa Transfer and Postings of Officers Bill was introduced in the Assembly. It sets up a Goa Services Board which can recommend transfer and posting of officers of different departments including the police. This clashes with the PEB.	Goa has only two districts. As such there is only a State level Police Complaints Authority. It is headed by a senior Retired Judge of Mumbai High Court comments Home Department issued a memo on July 23, 2014, stating that no complaint shall be inquired into by the Authority in which Departmental/Magisterial/Judiciary Inquiry has already been initiated.	Goa Police Bill 2008 introduced in State Legislature. Goa Police Bill 2008 introduced in State Legislature. Select Committee constituted to examine the Bill. The Bill however lapsed in 2012. State Government is reportedly drafting a revised Police Bill.
4	Jammu & Kashmir	Not complied. State Govt. in an affidavit filed in April 2007, sought exemption from implementation of this directive in view of the security situation in the State. It said that establishing such a body would destabilize the current system of coordination and control between the Army, CAPF and the State Police. With J&K becoming a UT on October 31, 2019, J&K will become part of the Union Territories Security Commission.	DGP J&K is empaneled and appointed by the Government of India.	It is claimed that the tenure of IGP and other officers is two years under the existing orders.	State Government moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction. However, according to latest affidavit, separate crime detection cells have been established in all police stations within municipal limits of Srinagar & Jammu only.	Created, vide order dated 6.02.07. Another order issued on 19.04.2017 in supersession of previous orders. Comments Board has DGP and nine other senior police officers (Court visualized DGP and four other senior officers only). Regarding postings and transfers of officers of the rank of DySP and below, order is silent about State Government’s power to interfere with Board’s decisions. Order is not clear on PEB’s power to recommend transfers of officers of rank of SP and above. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of State Police.	Not complied. State Govt. has moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction. Its argument is that such an Authority would mean an opening to separatist elements to lodge false complaints against the police. Besides, the State has already sufficient oversight mechanisms like SHRC and Vigilance Commission. comments May be favorably considered.	Jammu and Kashmir Police Bill 2013 drafted and made available for public feedback. There has been no further development.
5	Jharkhand	Created, vide notification dated 31.12.06. comments The order does not mention anywhere that the recommendations of the Commission shall be binding. No mention also that the Commission’s report on evaluation of police performance will be placed before the State legislature.	No order issued. State Government has expressed its concern over two year tenure to DGP. In Dec. 2012, State Government said in its affidavit that it is awaiting “guidelines” from the UPSC.	Order issued, vide notification dated 27.02.07 providing for minimum tenure of two years for police officers on operational duties in the field. comments However, the order says that two year tenure is “generally” granted.	Vide Resolution dated 31.12.06, separate cadres for investigation and law and order wing constituted for the urban areas of Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Bokaro and Dhanbad. comments Order does not specify any details of how the separation would be effected.	Police Establishment Board constituted vide notification dated 19.02.07, reconstituted vide notification dated 9.10.2009. comments Order is silent on the Court’s direction that State Government may interfere with decisions of Board only in exceptional cases, and after duly recording the reasons. Also, the Board is not authorized to act as a forum of appeal against police officers being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.	Constituted, both at State and District-levels, vide Resolution dated 03.04.07. comments However, resolution does not make recommendations of Complaints Authorities binding. Composition contrary to Court’s directive. Authorities, both at the State and District levels, are not headed by Judges.	Police Bill is reportedly being drafted.
6	Madhya Pradesh	State Security Council constituted vide Home Dept order dated 13.12.2011, as per Sorabjee model. comments It is an advisory body, whose recommendations will not be binding on State Govt. No provision for report of Council being placed before State Legislature.	Orders issued on 14.02.07. comments No role of the UPSC in the selection process. An additional clause of “failure to provide leadership in a grave situation of general law and order” has been added for the premature removal of DGP.	Orders issued on 14.02.07. comments Officers can be prematurely removed for “failure in controlling a grave law and order situation”. They can also be removed on “becoming otherwise incapable of discharging official responsibilities”, instead of “becoming incapacitated” as per Supreme Court’s direction. No procedure is prescribed for such premature removals.	State Govt. has, vide its order dated 27.08.2012, approved appointment of 400 additional police officers in four metropolitan areas / districts of Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur. comments Additional staff will be used both for investigation and law & order. Separate staff for investigation not provided for.	Created vide orders dated 14.2.07. comments The Board is not authorized to finally decide on transfer / postings of junior officers. The order mandates that all decisions of the Board should be forwarded to the State Govt. “before implementation”. Recommendations of the Board on transfer / postings of SPs and above are to be given only “reasonable weightage” by the State Government, not to be “normally accepted”. Representations from police officers against transfer / postings etc. and against being subjected to any illegal or irregular orders, are to be merely forwarded by the Board to the State Government for decision. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.	State Govt. have, vide their order dated 30.08.2010, constituted Complaint Board at district level. comments District level Board is headed by Minister i/c District instead of retired District and Sessions Judge. Other members of the Board also not as per Supreme Court direction. Recommendat-ions of Board will be referred to authorized commissions / police, will not be binding. No State level Board constituted.
7	Manipur	Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07. comments No mention that its recommendation will be binding. No mention of Commission preparing a report, evaluating performance of the state police, and placing that before State Legislature.	Order dated 28.12.06 issued. Minimum tenure notified. comments Tenure is subject to superannuation.	Order dated 28.12.06 issued	Not applicable as no town or urban area has a population of 10 lakhs or more.	Constituted vide Order dated 28.12.06. comments The Board is authorized to decide only transfers / postings of DySPs, and below. For other service matters, it will only make recommendations. For SPs and above, the Board will make recommendations, but the order does not specify that the Government will give due weight to those recommendations and shall normally accept them. The Board is not authorized to function as a forum of appeal. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.	Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07. comments The independent members of the State-level Authority are all retired bureaucrats and not drawn from civil society. Recommenda-tions of the Complaints Authorities are not binding on the authorities concerned.	Manipur Police Bill, 2007 was drafted. No further progress thereafter.
8	Nagaland	Constituted vide Notification dated 30.03.07. comments Notification does not state that recommendations will be binding. SSC has no role in evaluation of performance of the State Police and preparing a report thereon for being placed before the State legislature.	Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. As per the Court’s directives.	Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. As per the Court’s directives.	Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. comments It specifies that the separation is to be effected within the available budgetary and manpower resources, which appears non-committal.	State has a committee headed by Chief Secretary and comprising DGP, Commissioner and Home Secretary for the purpose under an old order of 1998. comments Arrangement is not in keeping with Court’s directives. State constituted an Establishment Board vide Order dated 17.01.07, which has been vested with powers of postings and transfers only in respect of SIs/ASIs. PEB constituted vide order of 23.06.08 to cover the ranks of SP and above does not conform to the SC direction in that it is not an entirely departmental body. The Boards are only recommendatory bodies. The Boards are also not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.	State level Authority constituted, vide Notification dated 30.03.07 comments Notification is silent on making recommendations of the Authority binding on the administrative authorities concerned. District level Authorities not constituted.
9	Odisha	Not constituted.	Notification issued on 06.04.07. comments Zone of consideration for selection not specified. No role for UPSC in empanelment of officers Minimum tenure of two years for DGP will be: “as far as possible” and subject to superannuation. DGP can be relieved of his responsibility, among other contingencies, upon his being found “incapable of discharging his duties”. This is liable to be misused. He may also be changed due to his promotion, retirement, including voluntary retirement or upon request for being relieved of the post for personal reasons.	Notification issued on 06.04.07 providing for tenure of two years for police officers on operational duties. comments An officer can be removed prematurely if he is found “otherwise incapable of discharging his responsibilities”. He may also be changed upon his request for being relieved of the post for personal reasons.	Notification issued on 06.04.07, separating investigation from law and order in two major cities - Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. comments Mechanics of implementation of separation are not specified in the notification.	Created vide notification dated 06.04.07, comments Not authorized to make recommendations to the State Govt. with regard to the postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP. Also, not authorized to act as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their being subjected to illegal orders, as mandated in the SC’s direction. The Board to review the work of the police officials in the State (not functioning of the police as such)	Vide notification dated 06.04.07, the State-level Authority is vested in the Lokpal who will deal with the complaints under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. comments Arrangement is a deviation from Court’s directions. No independent members included in the composition. Recommendations of the Authority will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. District-level Authorities not constituted.	Odisha Police Bill 2015 was drafted but is yet to be passed.
10	Uttar Pradesh	Constituted, vide GO dated 2.12.10, and 17.02.2011. Again reconstituted on 26.7.13, accepting Ribeiro model. Commission has, in addition to prescribed members, one Cabinet Minister, Principal Secretary (Home), and Principal Secretary (Law) also. comments Commission not given authority to lay down broad policies, will only lay down “guiding principles” Will give only “suggestions” and not directions for preventive tasks and service-oriented functions. Independent members are ex-officio and. therefore, cannot be considered independent. Commission will not “function independent of Govt. control”, as was directed by Supreme Court. No indication that recommendations of Commission will be binding	OM dated Dec.2, 2010 deals with selection/tenure of DGP, comments DGP will be selected by a Committee comprising Chief Secy., Principal Secy. (Home) and Principal Secy. to CM. UPSC not involved in preparation of panel. Tenure will be “as far as possible” two years including superannuation. This is contrary to Court’s direction. DGP may be removed “in the public interest” which could be subjectively interpreted.	Tenure of two years given to field officers. Government however says that it has to transfer officers in “contingent circumstances and exigencies of ground situation” comments Officers may be removed “in public interest under special circumstances”. Tenure rule is being violated rather too frequently in actual practice.	No G.O. or O.M issued. Instead, the State Government issued a letter dated 07.09.2007 to the DGP stating that in the initial phase, the separation of crime investigation from law and order shall be implemented to Inspector-level police stations, and directing him to identify 4, 2 and 1 sub-inspector respectively for each of A, B and C category police stations, for investigation work. It, however, adds that no additional post shall be created for this purpose, which means that separation would be on paper only. comments Govt. has passed on the buck to DGP; he cannot ensure separation unless Home Dept. sanctions augmentation of staff. Govt. says there is lack of manpower and infrastructure.	Letter dated 12.03.2008 of Principal Secretary, Home, addressed to DGP, provides for the constitution of four different Police Establishment Boards, one each to deal with the State-level transfers of (i) ASPs, (ii) Dy SPs, (iii) Inspectors, and (iv) SIs and below. comments The contents of this letter indicate that the Boards would deal only with transfers and not with other service-related matters envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. The Boards are also not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for police officers being subjected to illegal or irregular orders, or to generally review the functioning of the State police. There is no mention also that the State Government may interfere with the decisions of the Board only in exceptional cases and after recording its reasons for doing so. Vide another letter No.550/6-P-10-27(45)/06 dated 08.04.2010 of Principal Secretary, Home addressed to DGP, Police Establishment Boards were ordered to be constituted also for intra-Range and intra-District transfers of officers of and below the rank of Inspector. The jurisdiction of the Board, however, excludes the posting / transfers of officers posted / to be posted as officers incharge of Police Stations, for which concurrence of District Magistrate is prescribed. The functions of these Range and District-level Boards too are limited to transfers only and do not cover the other components of the Supreme Court directive. GO dated 26.12.10 constitutes a State level Estt Board to recommend transfer/posting of officers of and above rank of Addl SP. However, there is no indication that Govt will give “due weight” to these and “normally accept” them, as was mandated by the Court.	There are already several forums like State Human Rights Commission, SC / ST Commission, Minorities Commission, Women’s Commission, Backward Commission, Lok Ayukta at state level. PCA not constituted on the ground that it will result in “multiplicity of forum creating confusion in the minds of public”.
11	West Bengal	Government Notification issued in 2010 notifying the constitution of the West Bengal State Security Commission with one year as its term of appointment. comments Composition does not follow any of the three models mentioned in the Supreme Court order. The Commission is to be headed by the Health Minister, not by the Chief Minister who incidentally holds the Home portfolio himself. A retired High Court Judge and two non-officials are included in the Commission as Members but the criteria of their selection is not known. SSC recommendations “shall ordinarily be binding”. The word “ordinarily” provides an escape clause to state govt.	The Government of West Bengal, Home Department, issued a letter (No.381 PS dated 30.03.2007) addressed to DGP, WB and CP, Kolkata, intimating the “principles to be followed for the selection of DGP and prescribing a minimum tenure for the incumbent. comments The zone of consideration includes four senior-most officers of the State cadre, instead of three. The order is silent about empanelment by UPSC. The criteria for selection, as laid down in this letter, are sketchy and vague. The tenure of two years is subject to superannuation	The West Bengal Government, Home Department issued a letter (No.382-PS dated 30.03.2007) addressed to DGP, West Bengal and Commissioner of Police Kolkata, laying down the principles to be followed for the tenure of police officers on operational duties in the field. comments Conditions for premature removal of officers (before the expiry of two-year tenure) include vague and subjective elements like “exhibiting palpable bias”, “misuse of powers”, or “incapacity in discharge of official duties”. The provision relating to suspension could also be subject to misuse.	Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, vide his order No.46 dated 15.02.2008, formed separate investigation wings in ten Police Stations under Kolkata Police Commissionerate area; and DGP, WB, vide his order No.05 dated 29.04.2010, formed separate investigation wings in 20 Urban Police Stations, in the first phase comments Separation has not been effected so far in the remaining 38 Police Stations of Kolkata city.	The Government of West Bengal, Home Department, vide their letter No.383-PS dated 30.03.2007 constituted a West Bengal Police Establishment Board, and a separate Kolkata Police Establishment Board. Govt. of West Bengal issued another Notification (No.1549-P.S. dated 14.11.2009) constituting a Kolkata Police Establishment Board comments The orders in respect of setting up of the Police Establishment Boards both for West Bengal Police and Kolkata Police are broadly in consonance with the directive except that the Boards are not authorized to function as forums of appeal on representations from police officers on service matters (other than transfers / postings) and on their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. No mention of power to review functioning of police.	The Government of West Bengal, vide its Notification No.2162-PL/PE-16S-36/05 dated 02.06.2010, constituted a State Level Complaints Authority. comments The composition of the Authority does not conform to the Supreme Court directive. The Authority sought to be created by West Bengal Government is a five-member body with three of them serving officials (Home Secretary, DGP West Bengal and Commissioner of Police, Kolkata). The only non-official included as Member is a retired DGP. According to the Supreme Court directive, the Authority is required to be headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court / High Court and it should have 3 to 5 non-officials as members, depending on the volume of complaints in the State. They have to be selected from out of a panel of names suggested by the State Human Rights Commission / Lokayukta / State Public Service Commission. The term of the Authority, as per the Notification, is only one year. No order regarding the constitution of the District-level Complaints Authorities has been issued so far. No mention that recommendations of PCA will be binding.	West Bengal Police Bill was drafted in 2007 but was not tabled. A new Bill is reportedly being drafted.
12	Delhi & Union Territories	Order constituting SSC for all UTs (except Delhi) issued on 07.02.2013. There will be separate SSC for every UT (except Delhi) with Union Home Secretary as Chairman. comments SSC for UTs are dominated by Govt. representatives. There is only one independent member, other members being Home Secretary, Chief Secy / Administrator and Joint Secretary (UT), MHA. SSC for Delhi is proposed to be headed by L.G. with Chief Minister as member. Other members include Leader of Opposition in Delhi Legislative Assembly, Jt Sec UT Division, Commissioner of Police and five independent members.	Union Govt. is not in favour of involving UPSC in preparing the panel of officers for selection of DGP. Govt. also does not favour a fixed tenure and is opposed to giving that irrespective of superannuation on the ground that it would have legal and administrative repercussions.	Union Govt. agrees that senior level police functionaries should have a minimum tenure of two years but only “as far as possible”.	The order has been implemented in Delhi.	Boards have been set up in all the UTs “as per availability of officers in a particular UT”. Composition varies in different UTs owing to divergent police/ administrative hierarchies. Govt. does not favour Board being given appellate functions.	Notification No.14040/45/2009-UTP dated – March 2010) provided for the constitution of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) for Delhi and all the Union Territories. GOI set up Public Grievance Commission for Delhi and PCA in all UTs. PGC, through Govt. Resolution, was designated as PCA for NCT of Delhi. Subsequently, through another notification issued on January 29, 2018, a single Police Complaints Authority for Delhi was constituted. It will have a Chairperson who would be a retired High Court Judge and three other members. Mandate will be to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police personnel. Recommendations of the PCA shall ordinarily be binding unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing, government decides to disagree. comments There is a single PCA for Delhi. Court directive required PCA at state and district level. PCA recommendations are “ordinarily binding”.	Police Act Drafting Committee headed by Soli Sorabjee had drafted Model Police Act in 2006. However, Delhi Police Bill has yet to be passed.

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on December 31, 2020)
(In States which have passed Police Acts)

Sl. No.	State	State Security Commission (Direction No.1)	Selection & Tenure of DGP (Direction No.2)	Tenure of other Officers (Direction No.3)	Separation of Investigation from law &order (Direction No.4)	Police Establishment Board (Direction No.5)	Police Complaints Authorities (Direction No.6)	Remarks
1	Assam	The Act [Sections 34 & 35] provides for a Commission. Comments Leader of opposition not included in the composition. Method of selection of non-official members to ensure that the Commission is able to function independent of the government control, not spelt out in the Act. Will not evaluate police performance Report not required to be placed before the State legislature.	Provides for [Section 6]. Comments Selection to be made from amongst five senior-most officers (not three). Empanelment for the post to be done by State Security Commission, not UPSC. Minimum tenure of only one year, and also subject to superannuation. Removal clauses include ‘inefficiency’ ‘negligence’, ‘misdemeanour, and ‘public interest’, all liable to misuse. DGP can be removed without consulting State Security Commission.	Provides for [Section 12(3)]. Comments Tenure of only one year Limited to only District SPs and SHOs Removal clauses include ‘public interest’, ‘any contingency, which are liable to misuse.	Provides for [Section 55]. All metropolitan police stations to have a Special Crime Investigation unit for organized, economic and heinous crimes. Besides, special investigation cells will be set up in district headquarters for serious crimes.	Provides for [Section 44]. Comments Board not authorized to Recommend postings / transfers of Addl. SP & above. Function as a forum of appeal Review police performance.	Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84]. PCAs established at state and district levels Comments Methodology of selection of chairpersons and members not spelt out. Recommendations not binding on the concerned authorities.	Assam State Police Act, 2007 - in force from 18.09.07. State Govt. have said that, in the light of observations made by the Thomas Committee, State Govt. have decided to revisit the Assam Police Act to make it conform to the directions of Supreme Court.
2	Bihar	The Act [Section 23] provides for setting up a State Police Board, “within six months of the Act coming into force”. Comments The composition of the Board (Section 24) does not conform to any of the three models suggested by the Supreme Court. It is a three-member (all officials) body of which the Chief Secretary is the chairman, the DGP a Member and the Home Secretary, the Member-Secretary. Its recommendations are not binding on the Government. Its report is not required to be placed before the State Legislature.	For the selection of DGP, the Act [Section 6] prescribes “appointment from out of a panel of officers who are either already working in the rank of DGP or are found suitable for promotion to the rank of DGP” by a Committee constituted under the provision of AIS Rules, 1961. Empanelment of officers by the UPSC or any other independent body is not required. Comments The criteria for empanelment is not spelt out. The minimum tenure of two years is also not made mandatory. It will only “generally” be so, not necessarily. Conditions for premature removal of DGP include subjective considerations, such as incapacitation for “any other reasons” and “administrative grounds”, which are subject to misuse.	Section 10 provides for a minimum tenure of two years for officers of the ranks of Constables to Inspectors. Section 30 provides a tenure (“generally”, not minimum) of 2 years for supervisory police officers. Comments Conditions for premature removal include subjective considerations, such as incapacitation for “any other reasons” or “administrative grounds”, which could be misused. Need to fill vacancies “caused by transfers” is also violative of the Supreme Court guidelines.	The Act [Section 36] provides for the constitution of ‘Special Investigation Units’ in crime infested areas for economic and heinous offences. Comments These units will take up investigations only of specified crimes instead of all crimes, many of which will continue to be investigated by the law & order staff. The provision does not fully satisfy Supreme Court’s direction.	The Act [Section 10] provides for the creation of Transfer Committees (Police Establishment Boards) for officers of the ranks of Constables to Inspectors. Comments For higher ranks of District SPs, Range DIGs and Zonal IGs, there is no Board. Transfers and postings of these officers will, thus, be governed by rules framed by the Government from time to time. Even the Committees constituted under Section 10 of the Act will deal with only transfers and postings, and not with other service-related matters. Those are not “departmental bodies”, in their composition. They are not also authorized to act as forums of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding service matters or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. They are not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.	The Act [Section 59] provides for the constitution of a “District Accountability Authority”, for each district. Comments There is no provision for a State-level Complaints Authority. The district-level Authorities, in their composition, do not conform to the Supreme Court directive. Instead of being headed by a retired District Judge, their Chairperson will be the District Magistrate. The other members are also all officials with no representation of non-officials. The recommendations of the Authorities will not be binding on the administrative authorities concerned.	Bihar Police Act 2007 was passed by State. State has defiantly recorded that Courts have not been conferred with powers to make policy decisions. Act has been challenged at state level.
3	Chhattisgarh	Provides for the constitution of a State Police Commission [Sections 16]. Comments The composition does not fully conform to any of the three models suggested by the SC, in that the Leader of the Opposition is not included as a Member. There is no judicial element as a Member. The Commission has only advisory role. Its reports are not required to be put up before the State Legislature.	Provides for [Section 12]. comments It is silent about empanelment by UPSC The two year tenure is subject to superannuation. Silent about consultation with SSC before removing the DGP. Removal clauses include “administrative exigencies” which are liable to misuse.	Provides for [Section 14]. comments Provision limited to SHOs and District SPs. No provision for minimum tenure of two years for IG in-charge of Zone or DIG in-charge of Range. Removal clauses include “administrative exigencies” which is prone to misuse.	Provides for [Section 32] the creation of “Special Crime Investigation Units” comments No specific provision for separation at the police station level in urban areas.	Provides for [Section 22]. comments The functions are advisory and recommendatory in respect of transfers / postings of DySPs. Intra-District and intra-Range transfers of even subordinate ranks (Inspector and below) do not fall within the purview of the Board. No provision that the State Government shall interfere with the decisions of the Board in only exceptional cases after recording its reasons for doing so. No provision authorizing the Board to make appropriate recommendations to the State Govt. regarding posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP. No mention of review of the functioning of State Police.	Provides for [Section 38 to 43]. comments Only State-level Police Accountability Authority. No provision for constituting District-level Authorities. No provision for selection of the head of State-level Authority (a retired Judge) out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court. Similarly, no provision for obtaining a panel of names from the State HRC / Lokayukta / State PSC for selection of other members of the Authority. Recommendations of the Authority are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.	Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007 legislated – Notified on 28.09.07
4	Gujarat	Provides for the constitution of a SSC [Section 32A]. Comments Its composition does not comply with any of the models suggested by SC in that the Leader of the Opposition is not included as a member. There is no judicial element either. Also, the number of government functionaries (5) far outweighs the number of non-officials (2). Role is only advisory in laying down policy guidelines. Does not have the power to make binding recommendations. Annual report is not required to be placed before the Legislature; it has only to be submitted to the State Government for consideration and appropriate action.	Provides for [Section 5A]. comments No empanelment by the UPSC. Instead, it will be done by a Screening Committee of the State Government. The zone of consideration is not limited to three officers. Selection criteria laid down by the Supreme Court ignored. Tenure of DGP will “ordinarily” be two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The use of the word “ordinarily” is violative of the SC direction. Removal clauses include subjective elements, which could be misused. No provision for consultation with State Security Commission before removing DGP from the post.	Provides for [Section 5B]. comments Tenure is two years ordinarily. The word “ordinarily” is contrary to the SC direction. Some clauses for premature removal include subjective elements which could be prone to misuse.	Provides for [Section 7A]. comments Leaves the decision about separation completely to the State Government’s discretion. Mechanics of separation not spelt out.	Provides for [Section 32 D]. comments The Board is not an entirely departmental body, it includes an officer of Home Department. The power of the Board with regard to transfers / postings is limited to the rank of Inspector and Sub-Inspector only. No mention that the State Govt. may interfere with the decisions of the Board in exceptional cases only after recording its reasons for doing so. The Board is not to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their promotion / transfer etc. or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. The Board is not authorized to generally review the functioning of State Police.	Provides for [Sections 32F, G, H & I]. comments Composition of the Authorities different from the SC direction District Authorities have District SP as Chairman instead of a retired District Judge. There is no non-official member in the district-level Authorities. On the other hand, two MLAs have been included. The State-level Authority could be headed by either a retired High Court Judge or a retired Principal Secretary to the Government. The serving Principal Secretary( Home) and a police officer of or above the rank of ADGP will also be member of the Authorities. Recommendations of the State and the District-level Authorities are not binding.	Bombay Police (Gujarat) Amendment Act legislated – Notified on 23.03.08
5	Haryana	Sections 25, 26 and 30 deal with composition and functions of State Police Board. Comments Members will include either a Retd. High Court Judge or the Advocate General The functions of the Board are to only “aid and advise” the State Government. No mention that the report on the Board on performance of the State Police will be placed before the State legislature.	Provides for [Section 6]. comments Specific criteria for selection not enumerated and role of UPSC ignored in the selection. Tenure is only for one year, instead of two years. Selected DGP can be removed without consultation with State Police Board.	Provides for [Section 13]. comments The tenure of an IGP of a Range or SP of a District is only one year instead of two years. No fixed tenure provided for other officers on operational duties in the field. Grounds for premature removal include the need to fill up a vacancy caused by promotion, transfer or retirement of any other officer, which violates the spirit of the Supreme Court direction.	Provides for [Section 43] creation of specialized Crime Investigation Units. comments Units only at district level, for the investigation of only economic and heinous crimes. All other crimes will continue to be investigated by the police handling law and order also.	Provides for [Section 34], the creation of a Police Establishment Committee for administrative matters. comments Does not specify whether or not it will have powers to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers. No provision to make appropriate recommendations to the State Government regarding posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP The Police Establishment Committee is not authorized to act as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding transfer / postings etc. or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. It is also not authorized to review the functioning of the State Police.	Provides for [Section 68] the constitution of a District Police Complaint Authority for each district “as and when required”. Also provides for [Section 59] for establishing a Police Complaints Authority at the State level, comments Composition of the district-level Authorities is not specified in the Act. State-level Authority will be headed by either a retired Judge or a retired Secretary to Government or a lawyer with 20 years of experience in criminal law. (State level PCA constituted vide notification dated 16.8.2010 is headed by a retired IAS officer). Composition is not in consonance with Court’s directive. Recommendations of the Authority are not binding.	Haryana Police Act 2007 legislated – Notified on 02.06.08 Haryana Police (Amendment) Bill 2014 provides for district level PCAs.
6	Himachal Pradesh	Provides for [Section 48] a State Police Board. Composition does not conform to any of the models recommended by the Supreme Court. There is no judicial element in the composition. The number of officials (10) far outweighs the number of independent numbers (3). Recommendations shall normally be binding.	Provides for [Section 6]. comments Act provides for a ‘Screening Committee’ headed by the Chief Secretary to prepare panel for the selection of DGP. No role for UPSC in the selection process. No minimum tenure provided. Removal clauses include “administrative exigencies in the larger public interest” which is prone to be misused. Act is silent about consultation with the State Police Board before the DGP is removed from the post.	Provides for [Section 12]. comments Minimum tenure rule not made applicable to Zonal IGPs and Range DIGs. Removal clauses include ‘administrative exigencies in the larger public interest’ which is prone to be misused.	Provides for [Section 78] creation of a criminal investigation unit in every police station for investigation of only “serious offences”. comments It will amount to only partial separation of investigation from law and order functions.	Provides for creation of a State Police Establishment Committee [Section 56]. comments The Committee is authorized to approve rather than order postings and transfers of non-gazetted officers. No provision for the Committee to act as forum of appeal for disposing of representations of police officers regarding service matters other than transfers, or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. Also the Committee is not authorized to generally review the functioning of State Police.	Creation provided for [Sections 93, 94 & 95]. comments The composition of the State-level Police Complaints Authority is not in accordance with the direction of the SC. The Act does not specify the powers of the State-level Authority, leaving them to be “as may be prescribed”. The District-level Authorities also, in their composition, are different from that envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. They will be headed by the Divisional Commissioners with non-official members who will all be retired officials. District-level Authorities not authorized to directly inquire into any allegations of misconduct by police officers. The recommendations of the District-level Authorities will not be binding.	Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007 was passed.
7	Karnataka	Commission has been constituted. Comments It has no independent members from civil society. It is heavily tilted in favour of Govt. and will therefore not be able to function “independent of Govt. control”. No provision for preparation of an Annual Report	DGP will be selected by a State Govt. High Powered Committee comprising Home Minister, Law Minister, Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, DPAR. DGP will have tenure of two years subject to superannuation. comments UPSC not given any role in preparation of panel. Tenure is not irrespective of superannuation. DGP may be removed by State Government through a written order specifying reasons. No mention of requirement to consult SSC.	Officers on operational duties given fixed tenure of one year only, which is against the direction of Supreme Court.	Every police station will have two units, one dealing with crime investigation and other dealing with law & order. comments SP has been authorized to divert these officers. No clear indication that there would be augmentation in staff to facilitate separation.	Board constituted. comments It will have only three senior police officers as against four recommended by Court. Can function as Board of Appeal. Authorised to generally review the functioning of police.	Authorities constituted. comments State PCAs should be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. District PCA is headed by Deputy Commissioner and not by Retd. District and Sessions Judge. SP is member of District Authority. He may not have time for this job. No indication that recommendations of Authorities will be binding.	Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2012, received assent of Governor on August 8, 2012.
8	Kerala	Constituted under Sections 24/25 of the Act. Later, Govt. constituted SSC vide GO issued on 26.11.2011 comments There is no mention of selection panel for independent members. They are to be nominated by Governor. State Government may “fully or partially reject or modify” any recommendation of SSC. No provision for preparation of annual report.	Section 18 of Act provides for selection and appointment of DGP. comments It does not give any role to UPSC in preparation of panel. 2) DGP’s tenure is subject to superannuation. Grounds for removal indicated but consultation with SSC not mentioned.	Section 97 of Act gives min. tenure to DGP and other officers on field duties.	Separation provided for in Section 23 has been sanctioned in Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. Proposal to extend the same in other districts under consideration	Board constituted under Section 105. comments Can decide on transfer, posting and promotions of personnel up to the rank of Inspector. No power to decide transfer/posting of Dy.SP. Not authorized to make recommendations regarding posting/ transfer of officers of and above rank of SP. Appellate authority is limited to officers of and below rank of Inspector. Authorized to review functioning of State Police.	Authorities at State and District levels constituted under Section 110 of the Act, vide GO dated 17.2.12. comments Authorities have presence of serving police officers and bureaucrats; this was not envisaged in the Court’s directions. Recommendations of the Authorities are binding.	Kerala Police Act 2011 was passed.
9	Maharashtra	Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance ) Act, 2014 constitutes SSC on Sorabjee model. comments Additional Chief Secretary (Home) also included in SSC; Five non-official members will be nominated by State Government. They may not show required degree of objectivity. Composition does not conform to any of the three models. Recommendations of SSC will be “advisory in nature”. No mention of annual report.	DGP shall be selected by State Govt. from amongst four senior-most police officers from the cadre. comments Role of UPSC in preparation of panel not recognized. Tenure is subject to superannuation. Grounds for removal indicated but consultation with SSC is not mentioned.	Police personnel shall have a normal tenure of two years. comments Government has, however, retained the power of mid-term transfer of officers in public interest and in administrative exigencies. These could be misused.	Act is vague on this point. It merely says that local Crime Branch and Detection and Investigation Cells in each police station shall concentrate on investigation of crimes and shall not be entrusted with law and order, security and other duties ordinarily. comments The separation arrangement for crime work from L/O is weak and would apply “ordinarily”. Without additional staff, separation will be on paper only.	Two PEBs constituted at state-level, one at Range level and a fourth one at Commissionerate level. comments State level Board headed by Addl.CS is contrary to Court’s directions, which mandated it to be a “departmental body”. At the state level, there should be only one Board. Powers of DGP curtailed by Ordinance. State Govt. has power to give overriding directions which will be binding on the Board Board not given power to act as a forum for appeals or review functioning of the State Police.	Complaint Authorities set up at State/District levels. comments Composition of Authorities not in keeping with Court’s directions. State Govt. has the power to reject the report of the State Police Complaints Authority. Court’s direction was that PCA recommendations should be binding. State Govt had earlier taken the stand that recommendation of “any Authority” can never be binding on State Government, and that such a direction is “inconsistent with and contrary to the procedure laid down by the Constitution” There are provisions which could unduly penalize complainants.	Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014 promulgated on 25.06.2014
10	Meghalaya	State Security Commission dealt with in Section 36 of Act Comments Commission is heavily tilted in favour of govt. There is no judicial element. Recommendations shall be binding “to the extent feasible”. No provision for preparation of an annual report.	Section 6 of Act deals with selection/tenure of DGP,. comments UPSC not given role in preparation of panel. DGP given tenure of one year only subject to superannuation. He may be shifted in “public interest”	Field Officers given tenure of two years.	State has no City having population of more than ten lakhs.	Board constituted. comments Board does not have authority to decide transfer /postings of junior officers. It can only “recommend”. Review Committee will make recommendations about transfer/ posting of officers of the rank of IG/ Addl. DG. Appellate Authority of Board will be subject to Review Committee headed by Chief Secy. Not authorized to review functioning of State Police.	State level Accountability Commission set up. comments Chairperson of State Commission will be a retired officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the State Government. This is contrary to Court’s directive. Directions are binding. No mention of District level Authority.	Meghalaya Police Act, 2010 notified on 7.2.2011.
11	Mizoram	Constituted Comments Composition is not as per Court’s directive. No judicial element.\ No stipulation that its recommendations are binding. No provision for annual report.	Notification issued (DGP is appointed by MHA) comments SSC (and not UPSC) is the empaneling authority. Tenure is subject to superannuation. No mention of requirement to consult SSC before removing DGP prematurely.	Notification issued	Exemption sought in view of thin population of State	Constituted comments Mandate has been limited. No mention of Board functioning as forum of appeal. No authorized to review functioning of State Police.	State level Authority provided for under Section 101, District Level under Section 114. comments State Level Authority can be headed by a retired Judge or a retired IPS officer. This is against Court’s directive. District Level Authorities not given power to enquire into complaints but only to monitor departmental proceedings. . Directions are binding.	Mizoram Police Act, 2011 passed on Dec. 19, 2011.
12	Punjab	Constituted [Section 27(2)]. comments It does not adhere to any of the three models suggested by the Supreme Court. Composed of only government functionaries. There are no independent members on the Board, nor a sitting or retired judge or the Leader of Opposition. Recommendations are not binding on the State Government.	Provides for [Sections 6(1) & 6(2)]. comments No mention of selection through empanelment by UPSC. DGP is selected directly by state government. Zone of consideration is not limited to three senior-most officers. The minimum tenure of two years is subject to superannuation. DGP can be removed prematurely “for special reasons, to be recorded in writing” Consultation with State Security Commission for the removal of DGP not required.	Provides for [Section 15(1)]. comments Police officers on operational duties are assured only one year’s minimum tenure, ‘extendable to a maximum period of three years”.	Complied. [Section 36(1)] Implemented in five districts, vide letter dated 7.4.2007. Process being expanded.	Constituted [Section 32(1)]. comments The Board is not authorized to make recommendations on postings/ transfers of officers of the rank of SP and above. No provision also for the Board to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their promotion, transfer or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. Not authorized to review functioning of state police.	Created [Section 54] for both the State and District levels PCAs, comments Their composition /functions are not specified. Chairperson is a retired civil servant, which is contrary to Court’s directive. Recommendations are not binding.	Punjab Police Act, 2007 in force from 20.02.08. Amendments made in 2014.
13	Rajasthan	Provides for [Sections 21, 22 & 26]. comments The role of the Commission is sought to be limited only to ‘advising’ and ‘assisting’ the State Government. The composition does not conform to any of the models in the SC directive. An officer not below the rank of ADGP is made Member-Secretary of the Commission, instead of DGP. Recommendations are not binding..	Provides for [Section 13]. comments The Act does not mention empanelment of officers by UPSC. The parameters for empanelment are also not specified. Silent about consultation with State Security Commission before removing the DGP.	Complied. [Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 & 19]	Provides for [Section 42] creation of a separate Crime Investigation Unit in each Police Station. comments Leaves the discretion to the State Government which may decide it from time to time. Crime Investigation Units in a metropolitan area shall be established within “a period not exceeding five years from the notification of a metropolitan area”.	Constituted [Section 28]. comments The Board will only prescribe guidelines for transfer of subordinate ranks, with the approval of the State Government, not decide on transfer / postings as such. The Board authorized only to prepare proposals for transfers of Addl. SPs, not of SPs and other senior officers. No provision for the Board to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers on service matters including their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. Not to undertake a review of police functioning.	Provides for [Section 62 & 63]. comments There are variations from the Supreme Court direction in the composition of District and State Police Accountability Committees. The Committees are not headed by judicial members. The selection of Members of both the State and District-level Authorities, is left entirely to the discretion of the State Government – not from out of panels to be prepared in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction. The recommendations of the Authorities are not binding, they are authorized only to make recommendations.	Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, Notified on 01.11.07
14	Sikkim	Provides for constitution [Sections 39, 40 & 41] comments In its composition, the official members constitute a large majority. No stipulation that recommendations will be binding.	DGP to be selected by a Screening Committee comprising Chief Secretary, Addl.Chief Secretary (Plg) and Principal Secretary (Personnel) under [Section 6]. comments UPSC’s role in the empanelment process ignored. Tenure of DGP is subject to superannuation. DGP could be removed prematurely without consultation with the State Security Commission. Provisions such as ‘suspension from service’, and ‘administrative exigencies in larger public interest’, are prone to misuse.	Section 11 of Act provides two year tenure to SP and SHO. Notification dated 28.12.2006 however provides two year tenure to IG, SP and SHO comments Provisions such as ‘suspension from service’, and ‘administrative exigencies in larger public interest’, are prone to misuse.	Provides for separation [Section 97] by creating a Special Crime Investigation Unit at PS level in such crime-prone areas or urban areas as “considered necessary”.	Section 52 of Act provides for PEB headed by DGP and comprising three other senior police officers. comments Transfers / postings of officers above the rank of DySP are kept out of the Committee’s purview. Board is not authorized to review functioning of state police.	Provides for [Sections 132, 133, 138, 140 & 141] a State-level Police Complaints Authority only in view of small size of the State and low volume of complaints comments Recommendations of the Authority will be binding on the administrative authority concerned.	Sikkim Police Act legislated – Notified on 30.07.08
15	Tamil Nadu	SSC constituted, vide sections 5 & 6 of the Act. comments Composition does not follow any of three models prescribed by Court. SSC has Chairpersons of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, State Human Rights Commission, State Women’s Commission, State Minorities Commission as members. They are all ex-officio members, are government nominees and therefore cannot be considered independent. Not clear that recommendations of the Commission will be binding.	DGP will be selected from panel prepared by UPSC and will have tenure of two years. comments Act provides for panel of five officers. Court wanted UPSC to prepare panel of three officers only. Intention appears to be to give more latitude to CM. Grounds for premature removal include “other administrative grounds to be recorded in writing.” This could be misused.	Officers incharge police station, SP i/c District and Commissioner of Police will have tenure of two years. comments Act is silent about tenure of DIG i/c Range or IG i/c Zone. Officers may be transferred on “administrative grounds to be recorded in writing.”	Section 9 of Act provides for separation in every police station except those specifically designated as Crime Police Stations.	Act provides for several tiers of Establishment Boards – one for officers of the rank of SP and above upto the rank of IG only, another for officers of and below the rank of Addl. SP and Boards at Zonal, Range, City and District Levels. comments DGP alone (and not PEB) will send proposals for officers of and above the rank of IGP. Not clear that recommendations of PEB will be given “due weight” by the Government, which should normally accept them. Composition and functions of Police Establishment Committees at Zonal, Range, City and District levels have not been clarified. Board has not been given power to generally review the functioning of police in the State.	Complaints Authority established at State and District levels. comments Authorities are headed by bureaucrats at both levels – by Home Secretary at state level and Collector / DM at district level. Direction was that they should be headed by retired Judges. Authorities will make “recommendations” to state government for appropriate action. Direction was that these should be binding on state government. Complaints have to be received as a “sworn affidavit duly attested by a notary public”. This places unnecessary burden on complainants.	Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act 2013 promulgated on Sept. 11, 2013.
16	Tripura	Provides for a State Police Board, [[Sections 20]. comments Its composition does not comply with any of the models suggested by SC, in that the Leader of the Opposition is not included. Recommendations of the Board are not binding. Report of the Board is not required to be placed before the State Legislature	Provides for [Section 6]. comments No role of UPSC or any other body in empanelment of officers. Tenure is subject to superannuation. DGP can be removed without consultation with the State Police Board. Grounds of “inefficiency or negligence prima-facie established after a preliminary enquiry” not found in the SC directive.	Provides for [Section 11]. comments Minimum tenure not applicable to IGPs incharge of Zones and DIGs incharge of Ranges. Ground of “suspension from service” is prone to misuse. Ground of “inefficiency or negligence prima-facie established after a preliminary enquiry” not found in the SC directive.	Provides for [Sections 50-55] separation of investigation functions. comments No specific provision for not diverting the personnel of crime units to law and order duties.	Provides for a Police Establishment Committee [Section 27] comments It does not specify that the Committee shall decide all transfers, postings and other service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of DySP. No provision for the Committee to act as a forum of appeal for disposing of complaints from police officers regarding their being subjected to illegal orders. It has only to make appropriate recommendations to the competent authority in such cases. No provision also for the Committee to review the functioning of state police.	Provides for [Sections 59] only one Police Accountability Commission for the entire State. comments No provision for District-level Complaints Authorities. No provision for choosing the Chairperson from out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court. No provision also for selection of members from a panel of names prepared by the State Human Rights Commission / Lok Ayukta / State Public Service Commission. Recommendations of the Commission are binding.	Tripura Police Act, 2007 is in force from 07.04.2009.
17	Uttarakhand	Provides for a State Police Board [Section 29]. comments There is no judicial element in the composition of the Board. The number of official functionaries in the Board outweighs the number of non-official / independent members. The Act stipulates that the Board’s functions are simply to provide ‘suggestions’ and ‘advice’ to the State Government. Its recommendations are not binding.	Provides for [Section 20]. comments Does not provide for selection of DGP from a panel of names prepared by the UPSC. Instead, it stipulates a ‘Screening Committee’ constituted by the state government to prepare a panel of officers for selection as DGP. The two year tenure of DGP is subject to superannuation. Premature removal possible without consultation with SSC. Premature removal is possible for ‘gross inefficiency and negligence’ where prima facie a case of serious nature has been established after a preliminary enquiry. The nature of such a preliminary enquiry has not been outlined in the Act.	Provides for [Section 28]. comments The tenure of officer in charge of Police Station is limited to a minimum of one year instead of two years. The proviso of transferring any police officer from his post before expiry of tenure ‘in public interest’ is prone to be misused.	Provides for [Section 50] creation of special crime investigation units for police district or police stations.	Provides for [Section 38]. comments State Government given broad overriding power over decisions of the Police Establishment Committee. However, the Government has to record its reasons for doing so. It is not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding service matters or their being subject to illegal or irregular orders. It is also not authorised to review the functioning of the State Police.	State Police Complaints Authority headed by a retired Judge of Supreme Court/High Court set up. It will comprise Chairperson and maximum four other members. comments District Complaint Authorities headed a retired District Judge constituted for Kumaon and Garhwal regions. These will comprise Chairperson and maximum four other members. Recommendations of State/District Authority regarding disciplinary action against police personnel shall be binding. District Authorities have been constituted for regions and not districts.	Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 in force from 04.01.08. Uttarakhand Police (Amendment) Act, 2018 passed on March 24, 2018.

Movement for People’s Police – Launch at IIC on Sep 22, 2012

A function was held at the India International Centre on September 22, 2012 to mark the launch of the Movement for People’s Police. It was attended by representatives of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Common Cause, Foundation for Restoration of National Values (FRNV) and India Rejuvenation Initiative – all very reputed NGOs. The Association of Retired Senior IPS Officers (ARSIPSO) had also sent representatives. There were senior retired police officers, a couple of serving officers, lawyers, activists, students from Lady Shriram College, one social scientist and quite a few journalists, both from the print and electronic media. Shri Fali S. Nariman, noted Constitutional jurist, presided over the deliberations. The total gathering was about 35/40.

Prakash Singh gave the opening remarks. Explaining the background of the movement, he said that they had struggled for sixteen years through the judiciary and though the results were significant, there had not been much change at the ground level. Some states had given affidavits of compliance without introducing any changes at the ground level. The majority of states had taken very half-hearted measures just to avoid judicial displeasure. About 12 states had passed laws with a view to circumventing the implementation of Supreme Court’s directions. Under the circumstances, it was felt that unless there is a popular demand for reforming and restructuring the police, it was unlikely that the governments would listen. It was, therefore, decided to go to the people. It won’t be easy and it would be a long haul, but the effort has to be made. Besides, there was an impression, wrong though, that the Supreme Court’s directions were essentially officer-centric. It was necessary that the agenda had items which concerned the subordinate ranks and also items which the common man should think would benefit him. The reforms had therefore to be repackaged.

It was decided that we should call it a Movement for People’s Police and give it a Ten-Point agenda which would include items for the benefit and well being of the subordinate ranks as well as the common man.

Maja Daruwala, Director, CHRI emphasized that the police must have a vision and that what is today a force should transform itself into a service. The police should also reflect the diversity and plurality of Indian society. Policemen’s behaviour towards the common man must change and its officers should not succumb to pressures from above. She also called upon the organized groups to prepare a list of what all could be done to take the movement to the people.

Kamal Jaswal, Director, Common Cause said that implementation of Supreme Court’s directions were necessary, but not sufficient. What was more important was the satisfaction of the people. He was of the view that unless people have a say in judging the performance of police officers, there was no possibility of a mass movement.

Prashant Bhushan, Advocate expressed his happiness over launch of movement for People’s Police. He said that the police must become an instrument of service to the people. It was also necessary that there was direct accountability to the people.

B.G. Varghese, distinguished journalist, said that the message of People’s Police must be spread and that the Ten-Points should be sent to the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of states. He emphasized that systemic reforms in the police were absolutely essential and that unless that was done, it would be difficult to sustain the momentum of economic progress.

Bharat Wakhlu of Foundation for Restoration of National Values (FRNV) expressed his full support to the movement.

There were interventions from the invitees. Keki Daruwala deplored that the policemen showed bias against the minorities. Y.S. Jafa stressed the need of good police leaders. N.K. Singh observed that Bihar had moved in the reverse direction and stated that it was necessary to convince the political class that the movement was in their interest. B.L. Vohra wondered how the matter could be pursued in the Supreme Court and also wanted to know what message could be given to the students. B.S. Sial regretted the minimal contribution of police officers to the cause of reforms. Ajai Mehra, a social scientist, agreed that we should have a democratic police but deplored that there was no constituency for police reforms.

Fali Nariman expressed his happiness to be among so many heroes and said that it was an excellent movement. He emphasized that we should have a short-term and a long-term plan. In the short-term, we should “lower our sights” and concentrate on a small area, say Delhi, which should be so improved in policing so that it becomes a model for other states. In the long-term, police reforms will have to be tied with electoral reforms. Nariman formally inaugurated the website: http://www.peoplepolicemovement.com/.

Pankaj Kumar Singh gave the vote of thanks.

Core Group

It was decided to constitute a Core Group to give push to the Movement.

State Coordinators

The following State Coordinators have already started functioning:

Andhra Pradesh:	Kamal Kumar
Delhi:	NK Shinghal
Karnataka:	Ajay Kumar Singh
Madhya Pradesh:	Swaraj Puri
Maharashtra:	Satish Sawhney
Tamilnadu:	S. Balaji
Uttarakhand:	Aloke Lal

2013

A number of events were organised from September 20 to 30, 2013 to spread the message of Police Reforms.

1. About 20,000 pamphlets were printed and sent to most of the State capitals for distribution among the people, especially the youth and intelligentsia.(CIPSA and CRPF helped in the distribution of these pamphlets.)

2. A Rally was taken out in Bhopal on Sept 22. It was attended byabout 1000/2000 people.

3. An impressive Rally in support of Police Reforms was taken out in Lucknow on Sep 25, 2013. About 2,500 boys/girls of the University and Colleges participated. The rally started from the Varsity Union building, marchedthru Hazratganj, the heart of the City, and terminated near Mahatma Gandhi's statue opposite the GPO.Distinguished citizens present in the rally included two retired judges,Justice KamleshwarNath and Justice SC Verma. About 100 placard were carried by the participants. These read: " We wantPeople's Police, Not Rulers' Police", "Implement Police Reforms", "SupremeCourt Directions are for Good Policing", "Police Badlo, SamajBadlo" etc.Slogans "Police SudharLaguKaro", "Supreme Court KaMaanKaro - MaanKaro"were also raised. City magistrate met us at the GPO and accepted the Memorandum addressed to the CM.In the afternoon, a press conference was held at the Press Club. I spoke onthe significance of the Police Reforms Day, the need and relevance ofPolice Reforms, and stressed that Muzaffarnagar Riots would not haveescalated if the Sate Govt had honestly implemented Police Reforms. TheRally and the press conference were covered by the print and electronicmedia. Photographs of the rally are attached.

4. NDTV highlighted the need of Police Reforms in their programme 'We the People' on Sunday (Sep 22).
It was anchored by BarkaDutt. I participated in the Debate.

5. Articles on Police Reforms appeared in The New Indian Express and DainikJagaranand some other papers/ journals.

2014

In 2014, the Adarsh Bharat Abhiyan (ABHA) organised a satyagraha at Rajghat on September 20 in support of police reforms. The programme was endorsed by S/Shri Justice Lahoti, Justice Teotia, Ram Jethmalani, Prashant Bhushan, J.F. Ribeiro, T.S.R. Subramanian, Bhure Lal and several others. We assembled at the Samadhi, sat in silence there for about ten minutes and thereafter the gathering was addressed by me and also by Abha Singh, advocate, and Ashwini Upadhyay of ABHA. About 20,000 pamphlets on Police Reforms were distributed across the country to mobilise the support of people to the cause of Police Reforms.

2015

Indian Police Foundation

The Indian Police Foundation (IPF) was inaugurated by the Union Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, at the India International Centre, New Delhi on October 2, 2015. Eminent speakers included S/Shri Kiren Rijiju, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Soli Sorabjee, Dilip Padgaonkar, GK Pillai, Praveen Swami and Smt Patricia Mukhim. The Home Minister expressed the hope that the Foundation will work closely with the institutions of government and police training institutions while raising the professional competence of police personnel and bringing about positive and transformative changes in the Indian Police. The programme was attended by a galaxy of dignitaries including serving and retired police officers, civil society leaders and high government officials. The movement for police reforms was henceforth spearheaded by the IPF of which I was the Chairman till June 2022.

2016

In 2016, the India Police Foundation organized a Seminar on Whither Police Reforms: Ten Years after the Supreme Court verdict on Sept. 23, in the Constitution Club, New Delhi. It was presided over by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti. At the end of the deliberations, the IPF, the CHRI and several distinguished citizens including Chief Justice Lahoti, Kiran Rijiju, Union State Minister for Home, Veerappa Moily, former Law Minister, Fali Nariman, noted Jurist, Praveen Swami, journalist and others passed a unanimous resolution which read as follows:

“i) That it is a matter of serious concern that even ten years after the Supreme Court’s judgment on police reforms delivered on September 22, 2006, progress in the implementation of judicial directions had been tardy and that the states had either passed laws which were against the letter and spirit of Court’s directions or issued executive orders which diluted or modified the directions;

ii) That the Apex Court be requested to ensure effective compliance of its directions on the subject in larger public interest and to improve governance in the country failing which a wrong message would go that states could defy the directions of the highest Court of the land and get away with it;

iii) That the Government of India should convene a Conference of the Chief Ministers of States, along with Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police of the States, not only to discuss the issue of implementation in letter and spirit of the Court’s directions but also to adopt an INDIA-CENTRIC Policy on Police Reforms, and adopt measures to transform the existing police into an instrument of service to the people, upholding the rule of law.”

2017

The Foundation, in partnership with Common Cause, organized Police Reforms Day on September 22, 2017. The function was presided over by Justice G.S. Singhvi, former Judge of the Supreme Court. Those who addressed it included R.K. Singh, Minister, Power and Renewable Energy, Government of India, Jairam Ramesh, Member of Parliament, and Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary, CPI(M).

2018

A Conference on Future of Policing – Vision 2025 was organised on September 22, 2018. The function was presided over by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan, former Judge, Supreme Court of India. The speakers included Dr. Satyapal Singh, Minister of State, HRD, Government of India, Amitabh Kant, CEO Niti Ayog, Rajiv Gauba, Union Home Secretary, and Rajiv Jain, Director, IB.

2019

In 2019, a National Seminar on Realization of the SMART Policing Vision of the Prime Minister was organized on October 5 in the India International Centre at which Shri Venkaiah Naidu, Vice President of India, was the Chief Guest.

2020

In 2020, the Foundation organised an online lecture on Reforms in Police and Criminal Justice System are Crucial to Safeguard the Democratic Rights of Citizens by Justice Madan Lokur on September 22. Referring to the present state of criminal justice system, Justice Lokur said: “Police Reforms are the answer”.

An Appeal was also issued on September 22, 2020 by 32 distinguished citizens / NGOs of the country, at the initiative of the IPF. They included: Justice RC Lahoti, lawyers Fali Nariman, Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan, journalist Shekhar Gupta, seven retired IPS officers including Julio Ribeiro, five retired IAS officers including Madhav Godbole and NGOs Common Cause, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Association for Democratic Reforms, Foundation for Restoration of National Values and Citizens Forum India. The Appeal deplored that “none of the major parties of the country have shown interest police reforms” and it seemed that “they all find it convenient to use this instrument to subserve their political agenda”. The Appeal emphasised that police reforms are directly linked with the progress of the country and stated that “we cannot have a modern Indian state unless the police, which is the kingpin of the criminal justice system, is reorganized and restructured”. The Appeal even warned that “the democratic structure of the country itself may be in jeopardy if we do not arrest the criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime”. It went on to say that “good law and order is the sine qua non for economic progress” and that “the dreams of more than a billion people for better life would not be fulfilled unless we have a professional police upholding the rule of law”.

2021

In 2021, Justice Kurian Joseph, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, addressed the police fraternity online. He spoke on Role of the Police in Securing Citizens’ Rights and Strengthening India’s Democracy on September 23. Earlier, on September 22, there was a panel discussion on Generating Public Awareness and a Groundswell of Public Demand on Police Reform; the panellists were Raghu Raman, former CEO Natgrid, Vipul Mudgal, Director, Common Cause and Prakash Singh. Lokmaanya and Synergia Foundation, two online platforms, published articles and organized discussions on Police Reforms. The Symbiosis Law School, Pune and the Public Concern for Governance Trust (Pune chapter) jointly organized the BG Deshmukh Memorial lecture on The Need of the Hour- Police Reforms on Sept 28.

2022

The IPF Foundation Day / Police Reforms Day event was celebrated at India International Centre, New Delhi on September 28, 2022. Shri Kiren Rijiju, Hon’ble Minister of Law & Justice, who had consented to be the Chief Guest, could not attend the event due to another pressing engagement. The highlight of the event was a panel discussion on the need for developing an organisational vision for police organisations.

Besides, the Sansad TV organised a discussion on Police Reforms on September 21. Articles on Police Reforms written by Gurcharan Das (Times of India), Praveen Swami (The Print) and Prakash Singh (Outlook- Hindi) appeared in the media. At a Literary Festival held in Nagpur on October 9, Prakash Singh’s book, The Struggle for Police Reforms in India, was discussed

The Madras University organised a discussion on ‘Police Reforms: Issues and Challenges’ on October 20. It was presided over by Dr. Justice S. Vimala. The speakers included Justice G.M. Akbar Ali, Prakash Singh, P.M. Nair, C. Sylendra Babu, DGP Tamilnadu and Dr. N.S. Santhosh Kumar, Vice Chancellor, Tamilnadu Ambedkar Law University.