I recently came across a series of articles in a few newspapers about the ‘success of the Police Commissionerate system’ in Noida and Lucknow. I think it is important to offer a counter-narrative at this point, in the spirit of an informed debate. Policies should always be weighed in the scales of greater public good, and be based on empirical evidence.
To begin, we must note that the Police Commissionerate system was implemented in Uttar Pradesh in the wake of an increasingly volatile law and order situation, after a series of policy decisions like the scrapping of Article 370 and the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (CAB). Because of this turbulent phase, the decision to implement the Commissionerate system was not a result of wide-ranging consultation or deliberation. Crisis always strengthens the narrative for a centralised and more liberal use of legitimate state force. It is social logic.
The fundamental difference of this system is the placement of authority. As Frank Underwood remarks, “Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location.”
Also read: Uttar Pradesh is India’s broken heartland, break it into 4 or 5 states
Police Commissionerate in Uttar Pradesh
In this system, police officers above a certain rank get magisterial powers under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The authority shifts from the magistrate to within the police hierarchy. This erodes two fundamental tenets of any power structure:
a. the separation of powers
b. civilian control over a uniformed force
The separation of powers is a general framework. Consider preventive arrest under section 151 CrPC. The police are duty-bound to produce the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours. On more than one occasion, I have seen minors, senior citizens or injured persons produced before me, because they were likely to ‘commit a cognisable offence’ if they had been free. Now, they will be produced before a police superior, who will have the very same machinery to verify if the report is correct — judge, jury, and executioner.
The British, who were an invasive and brute force with the sole purpose of suppressing and retaining their colonial subjects, also did not apply this system as extensively as one would expect.
Also read: The case against dividing Uttar Pradesh into smaller states
Role of the magistrate
The second point is a contentious one. The most favourite logic for giving police magisterial powers is that it would lead to swifter action in law and order situations. This is, I can say with some confidence, a smoke screen. A law and order situation is, first of all, not by the book or within the neat lines of our laws. If an action has to be taken, it is usually taken, regardless of the presence or absence of a magistrate. There are no examples — I dare you to find one — where ‘delay’ in decision-making by a magistrate led to a law and order situation getting out of hand. A magistrate is totally, irrevocably and undoubtedly answerable for law and order. There is no ‘confusion’ in fixing responsibility. There is no authority without responsibility, just like there are no free lunches. Let us not overlook the fact that the mere presence of a magistrate in a law and order situation often diffuses it, as s/he enjoys the trust of the people. If a person dies in a road accident and there is a crowd of hundreds blocking the National Highway, it is nearly impossible for the police to convince this crowd that things are under control. In fact, the police often expressly ask for a magistrate to be present. For instance, Panchkula, Haryana the police demanded the magistrates to deal with the outcome of the Dera Sacha Sauda verdict in 2017. The magistrate can assure the family of the deceased of an impartial enquiry, compensations under the Motor Vehicles Act, payouts under government insurance schemes, a job for the dependents in case the person was a government employee, a residential lease of land, and so on.
To quote a 15 July article in the Hindustan Times, “According to data provided by the department, there has been a reduction of 172 per cent in the number of cases of vehicle theft from 1,381 in 2019 to 507 this year, a reduction of 157 per cent in rape cases from 54 (2019) to 21 (this year), 109 per cent in loot cases from 94 (2019) to 45 (this year) and 100 per cent reduction in dacoity and ransom based kidnappings.” This might be statistically impressive, but analytically, it is rather bankrupt.
Whatever happened to the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown? Has anyone factored that in? The article also talks about new U-turns made on highways, and the increase in the number of traffic lights. Surely, the police didn’t have orders from the magistrate to not make these changes earlier? Also, has there been an improvement in domains, that were exclusive jurisdictions of the police, such as cyber-crime or modern techniques of investigation?
The two districts in Uttar Pradesh that were most affected by the pandemic were also the ones that had the Commissionerate system. The state government, in fact, had to appoint a nodal officer for management of the pandemic, primarily to ensure coordination between the district administration and the police. The Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government, owing to the deteriorating situation in the capital, had to expressly issue an order on 15 June that said, “…there shall be unified command and control in the district and therefore all the DCPs of Delhi Police… all district heads of other departments…shall report to the respective district magistrate and shall function under their command…” This, in a state that has had the Police Commissionerate for decades.
Also read: Yogi Adityanath said ‘gunda raj’ over and people bought it. But UP crime still the worst
Rethinking narratives
The needs of any social structure should evolve over time based on feedback. Selectively culled narratives are sometimes counterproductive. An independent, third-party assessment is a better way to assess the gains of the new system. If it leads to better convictions, better and timely investigations/chargesheets, express conclusions of quasi-judicial proceedings under the National Security Act (NSA) or Gangster act, improved confidence in the public, and sets in motion other police reforms that have been on the back-burner, then we would have really progressed.
Currently, most of these issues are not even in the realms of discussion. Instead, a deliberate, systematic narrative is being created by injecting images, axioms and anecdotes into the public psyche. But this questionable narrative has the capacity to shape policies, lives and histories.
A more literate populace and vibrant civil society have levers of control that render such changes in the body politic fruitful. We perhaps should re-evaluate if we are there yet. The glitter of Police Commissionerate sign-boards should not blind us to the real issues.
The author is an IAS officer of 2017 Batch, Uttar Pradesh cadre. He is an engineer from Delhi College of Engineering. Views expressed in the article are personal and do not represent the stand of Government of India or the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
DM is alien to any admn except in British India. The designation is Collector to collect land revenue which was the main source of revenue those days. Police was to assist Collector to collect land revenue and to suppress any resistance by people. British also wanted to show that there is civilian control over uniform in case of allegations against Police action. British never had a system of this type in their own country. Land revenue is no more a source of revenue and therefore there is no role for Collector. British had Police Commissionerates in Metropolitan cities analogous to policing in England.
In the old system, Collector DM combined in him the roles oppressor, prosecutor and judge but no accountability.With separation of powers, he lost judicial powers and with devolution of powers to Zilla Parishats, he has no role in development. The post of DM has become anachronistic and deserves to be abolished.
The IAS is keen to retain control over Police in the districts for aggrandizement and symbolism. They say they are required for coordination. It is here that they wield power without accountability. With explosion in communication systems and video conferences, the Ministers can attend to all matters as they are accountable to Legislature and the Public-not the baabus. In the Secretariat, the baabus became more powerful than Heads of Depts and Ministers by derivative means and again without accountability. There is no generalist administrative service in any country out side British India.
Coming to the subject of Police Commissionerates, there is need to create more of them in the cities and I go a step further that Police should be made autonomous at all levels with magisterial powers from Police Station SHO upwards as in developed world. One can see the Policing effective in Western and Southern India where the Police is partially autonomous under their respective Police Acts unlike other States where policing is under Indian Police Act 1861 which is equally anachronistic and outdated. With the type of Political leadership we have which is nose led by generalists pandering to their personal ambitions, I do not see much of hope for better policing in the near future.
Will not .and if he does then social media will teach lesson.yogi is not like that
Print you are hypocrate the comments which are speaking truth you remove why?
In European countries police is independent and guided by law. Why do iAS think they are fountain head of morals and wisdom. Most of the law and order problems in society today is due to maladministration of IAS . Let first IAS do their job with out ego and change their I know all attitude First IAS should change their craving for controlling others and think they are here to rule. In democracy public are masters. Every one are servants. Ones objective should serve public not to rule. This young should understand he is not sheninsha
Very true. This article is written by an IAS officer with mere 3 years of service! Does he think that so many IPS officers with 15-20 years of service are fools? And who gave him the permission to post articles in the media? Immaturity.
Separation of powers means separation of powers between the three pillars of constitution viz. Legislative, Executive and Judiciary and not separation between two wings in executive.
Who conceptualized “Civilian control over uniformed force?” It is said that Civilian control shall be there over armed force in a democracy. But police are not armed force. It is part of civil service. Where have you got the concept called “uniformed force?”. That means if police officers are dressed in formals, they cease to be in that category!. Probably civilian control, you mean, under IAS control. Police are under civilian control only, even in Commissionerate system, that is civil political executive.
Production before magistrate in 24 hours means, production before judicial magistrate. In commissionerate system too, the arrested person is produced before judicial magistrate only.
Please concentrate on your academics. Once you understand the CrPC and other relevant laws clearly, you can write.
By the way, the way you presented is very good even though you are conceptually wrong and no logic exists in it.
This young officer of ‘vast’ experience of 3 years in service has repeated what IAS officers have been stating for decades and opposing the Police commissioner system. The system in UP was not thrust upon on a sudden whim. Demand and even action to implement it in major cities of UP has been going on for decades. The officer was perhaps not born when this system was ‘almost’ announced for Kanpur but scuttled at the last moment. There are a large number of examples of misunderstanding in this article. The office of District Magistrate [DM], a service bureaucrat was designed by the British to maintain the British Raj and use the police to terrorize the people. Significantly, the Police Commissioner system was introduced by the British at Bombay Madras and Calcutta due to the larger presence of Europeans who did not want the colonial system to exercise power upon them. The claim of civilian supremacy is deliberately misconstrued. The DM is a ‘civilian’ officer in the sense that he or she does not wear a uniform. But as a bureaucrat the DM is an instrument of the government and beholden only to his departmental superiors and ministers controlling his various functions. As the foremost colonial institution, the DM is not a representative of the local citizens and in fact rules over them. Indeed, there is wide spread need to bring the DM under local citizen representatives which has been fiercely resisted by the IAS officers. The argument that magistrate controls the police force during Law-Order situations is largely a myth. Barring some good officers in almost all the cases the magistrates stay behind the police and dutifully sign the order for firing if it takes place. The National Police Commission found that citizens trusted the SP and IPS officers to redress their complaints against local police officers and not the DM. In fact, not one DM has ever inquired professionally into complaints of torture, abuse of authority, extortion and even ‘encounter killing’.
Since the Commissioner system provides for greater supervision by police leadership [the number of senior officers is much more than one restricted to SP or Addl SP only] one meaningful comparison will be to examine mechanisms of handling complaints. Either greater supervision leads to tighter control over the abuse of authority by subordinate officers or loosening of external restraints leads to more abuse of authority. The difference between the Commissioner and DM is best illustrated by comparing which system leads to better control over abuse of authority, as measured by citizen complaints, rather than by crime numbers.
One point that makes sense is not to measure police performance by crime numbers. Criminology suggests that police role in preventing deviant and criminal behavior is very limited. Studies examining declining crime rates in NYPD have found questionable methods attributed to the police officers to reduce crime numbers. A study about declining crime rates in India [Yes! Crime rates have been declining since 1991- see article in EPW Nov 2019] also suggests that this could not be attributed to police efforts.
In no other country is there a system of dual control over the police. This DM system has prevented the growth of professional police and one which is more effective in its functions. It is time to adopt the Commissioner system in all the districts of the country.
Very well stated
Lucid article. But the Commissioner-ate system of policing is in vogue in India for decades – in many other states. Ideological questions raised by the writer should apply to the whole concept – not only to one state. Writer should be well advised to cross-check from his senior colleagues in those states too.
His reasoning seems altruist on the face of it. But hope deep down it is not the standard ‘turf war’ between the magistracy and police. On writer’s ‘I dare you to find one…..’ point, I from my experience can cite half a dozen cases where the District Magistrate did not depute a magistrate required for the law and order duty and we had to fend for us. There are many cases where magistrates have refused to permit use of the forces not that there were not enough grounds for it but because they did not want to be held accountable later for the consequences.
All the points are very well argued. UP is going down a dangerous road where the police can easily misuse their powers to achieve nefarious political or personal goals. A police state often means that the biggest criminals turn out to be the men in uniform!
Appears to be a self centered Individual . What Ias has done all these years . Root cause for rotten system in UP is IAS.
This fellow is not even aware of the original police commissionerate system implemented by brotish in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Presidency in 1858. The system is time tested and functioning marvelously. These are upheld by the Apex court of India too.
He talks of only piecemeal commissionerate systems of Delhi, Panchkula etc and worst among them in Noida and Lucknow with little independece that too initialy given only for 6 months by bureaucracy. Needs to be matured and read the commissionerate sytem of London, Singapore, Paris, Newyork etc too.
Police commissionerates are a common feature almost everywhere else in India, especially in the better-governed states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat. It has been found that commissionerates do better in terms of police accountability and professionalism. UP has long stood out for its lack of such a system, and of course for its utterly appalling record of lawlessness. Surely it is better to attempt a reform rather than just live, decade upon decade, with the abysmal dysfunction of governance in UP?
In a bid to cling on to all levers of power, the bureaucracy has long opposed the adoption of police commissionerates in UP over the decades, and similarly made it an uphill battle for police reform to be effected in state after state. This is identical to the bureaucracy’s opposition to defense reforms – such as the CDS and the integration of service headquarters with the ministry of defense – that would empower military officers over the civil service. However, such a narrow outlook grounded in a turf mentality ill behoves a progressive nation. Reforms must be carried out, as they give expression to the public desire for change, and induce further innovation. Clinging on to outdated systems, on the other hand, perpetuates bad practices.
One more blatant admission by the IAS lobby when their “vanity bubble” has got pierced. The call them selves district magistrates and that means only dispensers of justice and the dirty job of facing the violence will not be attended by them. This title needs to be taken out and given to the judicial officers
This article is yet another piece of proof that the IAS should be wound up. The quicker the better.
The CM should know that he won’t be in power for life time.
The same police (that he’s feeding on power narcotics) will come to torment him.
He should remember that he cried on floor of house while speaking about police overreach.
Very courageous for a young IAS officer to write like this. Hope he is not reprimanded by the Yogi administration that seems to have given unbridled powers to the police in U.P.