Chandigarh: Seventy-five years after Independence, Punjab and Haryana are still following the police rules formulated by the British in 1934, with some amendments, a fact the Supreme Court (SC) expressed displeasure over Wednesday while dismissing a plea filed by a former constable of the Haryana Police in a case pertaining to his compulsory retirement from the force.
The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 — which the court termed as “outdated” and which apply to the state of Haryana as well — are in two volumes, the first of 362 pages and the second of 191 pages.
A perusal of the rules, available on the police website, shows that it still follows the old hierarchy in the force, when the inspector general of police (IGP) headed the state team. Today, the director general of police (DGP) is the state police chief and the IGP is junior to both the DGP and additional DGP in rank.
The rules also mention horse and saddlery allowance for police officers, “docking of tails of horses”, and “castration of stallions”, among other things.
In its judgment, the SC division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pulled up the Punjab and Haryana governments over the British-era police rules and directed them to amend the rules in line with the current hierarchy of the state police.
It pointed out that “the Rules, originally framed in 1934, contemplated the authorities as ‘The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police’. The ‘Inspector-General’ of that time headed the State Police, but is today known as, in most States and Union Territories, barring a handful… (the DGP), an officer drawn from the Indian Police Service, who sits at the apex of the state police machinery”.
“Indubitably, the Rules, for better or for worse (worse, we hazard) have not kept pace with the times. We do not appreciate why the authorities concerned are unable to update/amend the rules with at least the correct official description of posts to obviate confusion,” the bench stated.
It further directed that copies of its order be sent to the chief secretaries, home secretaries and DGPs of Punjab and Haryana for necessary action.
Contacted by The Print Sunday, Haryana home minister Anil Vij said the state had already initiated the process of formulating its own police rules in line with the Haryana Police Act of 2007.
“I had constituted a committee of IPS officers under IGP Amitabh Dhillon for framing the rules. Our draft rules are ready and will be placed before the cabinet for approval soon,” said Vij.
While the Punjab Police website has a similar ‘Final Draft of Punjab Police Rules, 2011’, ThePrint has also reached Anurag Verma, principal secretary in the Punjab Home department for comment on the issue. The copy will be updated once a response is received.
Meanwhile, the SC ruling was welcomed by many, who hoped the top court’s order would “awaken the authorities”.
“The court’s direction to Punjab and Haryana should awaken the authorities from their slumber of not updating the obsolete and irrelevant provisions. They should be reframed keeping in view the modern-day requirements,” Rajbir Deswal, a retired IPS officer from Haryana, told ThePrint Saturday.
Deswal, who had retired as ADGP in 2017 and now practices law in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, added that it was “unfortunate that the legislature and executive had to wait for a whipping from the judiciary to undertake desirable best practices”.
Another Haryana Police officer, talking to ThePrint on condition of anonymity, claimed that “even Pakistan, which was carved out of India [in 1947], is using the same police rules of 1934”.
Also Read: PM Modi wants India to shed its colonial past. He should begin by reforming the police
Case of ex-constable before SC
The SC’s observations on the 1934 police rules came on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in court by Haryana Police ex-constable Aish Mohammad, who was compulsorily retired from the force on the orders of the state DGP following complaints of “corruption, insubordination and dereliction of duty” against him.
Mohammad had filed the plea against an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had restored the Haryana DGP’s order directing reconstruction of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) against him, on the basis of which he was ordered to be retired.
Dismissing Mohammad’s plea, the apex court said: “Considering the chain of events, the consequential action, in our considered view, cannot be said to be arbitrary or shocking the conscience of the court, so as to warrant interference.”
According to the SC judgment, a copy of which is with ThePrint, Mohammad had joined the Haryana Police in 1973 and was promoted as head constable in 1993. After an inquiry following complaints against him, he was demoted to constable rank.
On 28 April, 2001, the IGP, Gurugram Range, following a plea by Mohammad, modified the demotion order to “stoppage of one increment”. Mohammad then moved a civil court against the stoppage of his increment as well as two adverse remarks given by his controlling officers in his ACR.
The civil court set aside the order of stoppage of increment but, for the deletion of the adverse remarks in the ACR, the court told Mohammad to put up a fresh plea before the IGP. Upon his representation, the IGP — who had changed over the years — expunged the adverse remarks against Mohammad on 28 January, 2005.
On 5 September, 2006, Mohammad received a show-cause notice from the DGP, who was in cognisance of the matter, saying that undue benefits had been given to him by the expunging of remarks and asking why the same should not be restored and orders of compulsory retirement passed against him.
On 20 October, 2006, the DGP ordered the reconstruction of Mohammad’s ACR, i.e. for restoration of the expunged remarks.
Aggrieved by the order, Mohammed moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court, but during the pendency of his writ petition, the Superintendent of Police in Mewat, Nuh, issued him a notice of compulsory retirement.
On 27 January, 2010, a single judge of the HC allowed Mohammad’s petition. The court quashed the order of reconstruction of ACR and compulsory retirement.
The state in response filed an appeal in the high court and a divisional bench reversed the order of the single-judge and restored the orders of the Haryana DGP.
Mohammad then approached the SC alleging that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which apply to the state of Haryana, don’t provide any powers to the DGP for ordering his retirement.
The SC dismissed Mohammad’s petition, and observed that the IGP, Gurugram, while expunging the adverse remarks against Mohammad (on 28 January, 2005), had reviewed the order passed by his predecessor, and that was not allowed.
“The ‘review’ is by a superior authority and not the same authority,” noted the bench, quoting Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
“Clearly, the ‘review’ contemplated in Rule 16.28 empowers a superior authority to ‘call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make a further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders’,” it stated.
A look at the 1934 police rules
Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, states that the command of the police force, its recruitment, discipline, internal economy, and administration vests in the IGP, and he is assisted in his work by a number of deputy inspector generals and assistant inspector generals.
Today, according to the Haryana Police website, the state has six officers of the rank of director general — Manoj Yadava, P.K. Agrawal, Muhammad Akil, R.C. Mishra, Shatrujeet Singh Kapur, and Desh Raj Singh. Of these, P.K. Agrawal is the DGP and heads the state police. The force also has 16 ADGPs. All these officers are much senior to the IGP.
Even at the IGP level, Haryana has 16 such officers at present. The state also has a commissionerate system in Panchkula, Gurugram, Faridabad, and Sonipat where the designations of police officers are entirely different.
Punjab has four IPS officers of DGP rank, 13 officers of Special DGP rank, 24 of ADGP rank and 14 police officers of the IGP rank, according to the state police website.
Appendix 2.24 (3) of Volume 1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides for the enrolment and employment of volunteers from the public as special police officers in disturbed areas.
“The Superintendent of Police entertaining special police force shall arrange for their feeding by purchase and distribution of food according to the following scale — 1.5 lbs atta [wheat] or rice, 4 oz dhal, 4 oz fresh meat or in lieu gur, half oz tea, half oz salt, 2 oz ghee, 1 oz gur, 1.5 lbs fuel, 1/6 oz chillies, 1/6 oz turmeric and 1/6 oz garlic, or cash in lieu of these items,” it reads.
The 1934 rules also provide for petty and annual repairs, with the SP entitled to spend Rs. 300, the deputy inspector general Rs. 1,500 and the IGP Rs. 2,500.
Rule 4.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, deals with grants for the purchase of uniforms, saddlery, and horses, and the rules also describe in detail the various uniform articles entitled to the lower constabulary free of any cost.
For the gunmen deputed for the protection of the Governor, ministers and other higher officials, the rules provide “for one achkan [a coat or tunic worn by men] made of dark blue serge or dark blue blazer cloth, one achkan of white drill, a gold kullah [a neckpiece worn with an achkan], a white salwar [trousers], a white pagree [turban], pair of black shoes, raincoat, one waterproof coat for those posted in hilly areas, a blue overall for armourers and a mosquito net with poles to each lower subordinate except those posted in Simla”.
Harversacks, according to muster pattern, shall be issued to police stations and outposts at the rate of one per constable, states Rule 4.13.
Chapter 4 of the rules says that “all gazetted officers, except prosecuting deputy superintendents, shall provide themselves with at least one horse not less than 14 hands one inch in height for mounted duties unless specially exempted from doing so by the Inspector-General”.
The rules further provide for horse furniture which includes “a bit, bridle, girths (dark blue), saddle (ordinary hunting, fitted with necessary nickel D’s), frog (of brown leather, attached, to the shoe case for carrying the sword scabbard, shoe case fitted with a leather steadying strap)”.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a deputy superintendent of police in Haryana told ThePrint that many of the items that were provided to police officers under the 1934 Rules are quite outdated now. “Similarly, the amount mentioned in the Rules for petty repairs, uniform allowance etc is too small to meet the requirements of the present times,” he said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: In Modi-Shah’s push for ‘One India’ and CBI, ED—state police suffering