The Supreme Court gave a historic judgment on police reforms on 22 September 2006. Today marks the 19th anniversary of the judgment, and therefore it’s time to reflect on the progress, the failings, and the road ahead.
It is one of the ironies of modern India that while we are capable of sending a mission to the moon, are in a position to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, are building a network of express highways across the country, connecting even the remotest regions of northeast by rail link, and are on the verge of becoming the world’s third–largest economy, we are still saddled with an antiquated police structure bequeathed to us by the British. It is like a jalopy on a highway.
In the wake of Emergency and the subsequent Shah Commission report, which exposed the politically compromised character of the police, there was a realisation that “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” and that the Indian police needed a complete overhaul. A National Police Commission was appointed to study the entire gamut of police working. It produced a comprehensive report in eight volumes during 1979-1981, suggesting structural changes that needed to be carried out.
Unfortunately, the political landscape of the country changed by the time these recommendations were made and the government did not favour the suggested changes because those were made in the context of a devastating indictment of the same party in power earlier. As a result, a brilliant report produced by some of the finest brains of the country received no more than cosmetic treatment.
Great expectations
A public interest litigation filed in 1996 argued that the executive had been “using, misusing and abusing the law enforcement agency to further its own selfish, partisan and political objectives” and that, as a result, there was “alienation of people from the police due to the increasing incidents of aggression on their fundamental rights and even human rights”. Therefore, it added, there was a need to introduce “such reforms as are essential to make the police, in letter and spirit, accountable to the law of the land and the people of the country”.
The Supreme Court of India thereupon, after ten long years of hearing, issued a set of directions in 2006 for the state and the central governments. The states were directed to constitute a state security commission to insulate the police from outside pressures, a police establishment board to give departmental officers a certain degree of autonomy in personnel matters, and a complaints authority to look into complaints of serious misconduct against police personnel. The states were further directed to follow a prescribed procedure for the selection of the Director General of Police of the state to ensure that only the best officers are considered for the top job, give a fixed tenure of two years to all officers on operational duties on the field, and separate investigative work from law and order functions in the metropolitan towns. The Centre was asked to constitute a national security commission to upgrade the effectiveness of the central armed police forces and improve the service condition of its personnel.
There were great expectations. People of the country felt that the directions would completely transform the working of the police and make it sensitive, accountable, and people-friendly. However, that was not to be. The ruling elite saw in the judicial directions a threat to their hegemonistic control over the police, and so the bureaucracy and the political class put up formidable resistance.
The Supreme Court fortunately monitored the implementation of its directions. In the face of judicial scrutiny and pressure, several states issued executive orders while some passed legislation purportedly in compliance with the court’s directions. But a close scrutiny revealed that these orders and enactments were cleverly designed to circumvent the implementation of judicial directions. On the face of it, there was compliance on paper, but in actual fact the orders and the laws went against the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The net result was that there has been hardly any change at the ground level. Justice Thomas Committee, set up in 2008 to inquire into the state of compliance in the states, expressed its dismay over the “total indifference” on the part of states in following the apex court’s direction of 2006.
Also read: Why avoiding police, hospitals, and courts feels like a blessing in India
Public consciousness aroused
Nevertheless, one unmistakable achievement during all these years has been that the police reforms have sunk in the consciousness of the public mind. The intelligentsia, if not the common man, understands what is wrong with the police and what needs to be done at the government level to make the police people-friendly. NGOs in some states have included police reforms in their agenda. Every time there is a scandal on the law and order front, editorials of prominent papers bemoan the delay in the implementation of the apex court’s directions. It is also a fact that the states have registered some forward movement in the process of compliance of judicial directions, however reluctantly and grudgingly.
The Centre pleads that police is a state subject and hence they can not do much in the matter. The argument is unacceptable. There is nothing that prevents the Centre from implementing the judicial directions in states where the same party is in power. It could also have incentivised the implementation of judicial directions by offering generous funds for the modernisation of the state police. It is also a fact that the Centre has, even after two decades, not been able to finalise the Model Police Act, 2006. The states are, of course, dragging their feet in the matter.
Also read: Mumbai train blast verdict shows an urgent need to reform India’s criminal justice system
The way forward
So, what is the way forward? While pursuing the reforms agenda, we need to work on three fronts. Firstly, the police officers should focus on internal reforms — which the officers can introduce and sustain without any opposition. The ambience at police stations should improve. A man entering a police station should feel confident that his complaint would be received sympathetically and that the police would do whatever is in their power to redress the wrong he has suffered. There should be no hesitation or undue delay in lodging the FIR. Women should feel safe and be dealt with, as far as possible, by policewomen. Police’s behaviour toward the common man should be marked by empathy. Third degree methods should be dispensed with and there should be greater emphasis on scientific methods of investigation.
These and similar other measures would go a long way in bridging the divide between the police and the public.
Secondly, police should go after the low-hanging fruits. These would include filling up vacancies (there are about six lakh vacancies across the country), augmenting the transport fleet, improving communications, and providing better housing facilities to police personnel. We need more forensic laboratories. Training institutions require massive upgradation. And working hours of policemen need to be regulated. It must not exceed 12 hours a day and be gradually brought down to eight hours. This would require additional manpower, which could be recruited.
Thirdly, there should be heavy induction of technology in the functioning of the police. These would act as force multipliers. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) has already become a game-changer. The National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) has also become functional and it should give investigators a 360-degree profile of the suspects. Artificial intelligence could be introduced at appropriate levels. Cyber crime has become a huge challenge; it would require a more elaborate and sophisticated response. Encryption, internet of things, cloud storage, and 3D printing, to name only a few, are going to throw up unknown challenges and we should prepare to meet them.
Meanwhile, the least controversial of the Supreme Court’s directions — separation of investigation from law and order in metropolitan towns — should be pushed through. It would require some augmentation in police strength, which should not be difficult. Public support for the other directions would need to be mobilised, and NGOs could play a useful role in that. There should be a campaign to include police reforms in the election manifestoes of all the major political parties. The government of India is committed to having SMART police in the country — a police which would be strict and sensitive, modern and mobile, alert and accountable, reliable and responsive, tech-savvy and trained. It needs to be emphasised that these objectives can be achieved only if the mandated structural changes are carried out.
A progressive, modern India needs a police which is people-friendly, sensitive, accountable, and upholds the rule of law. A Vikasit Bharat must have a people’s police — not the ruler’s police that we have.
The author is a retired police chief who has spent the last three decades campaigning for police reforms. His X handle is @singh_prakash. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)