A recent Madras High Court order on constables performing functions as orderlies has possible pan-India implications. It could have a far-reaching impact on the architecture of police governance, especially the dignity of those ‘at the bottom of the pyramid’.
That this did not make it to the front pages of the so-called national press (a euphemism for newspapers published from the NCR) is not surprising, for the North is certainly more ‘feudal’ than its southern counterparts.
On 11 March 2026, Justices SM Subramaniam and K Surender of the Madras High Court gave clear directions to the Tamil Nadu government to ensure cent percent compliance with its own 21 January order with regard to the abolition of the pernicious ‘orderly system’ in the state police, including action against District Collectors and police officials who fail to enforce the policy. The order was issued after a petition for police protection exposed that the force was short-staffed because constables were being misused as orderlies in the households of senior officers. The issue was not new — in 2022, the Madras High Court had already directed the state to eradicate the ‘orderly system’, reviving a much earlier government ban on the practice.
It is true that immediately after taking over as the Director General & Head of Police Force (HoPF) of Tamil Nadu in December 2025, Abhay Kumar Singh had reiterated his commitment to follow the extant order on the subject in letter and spirit. But within a week, newspapers reported serious breaches of this order. Subsequently, the government announced the establishment of a committee under each District Collector to report compliance to the Home Department before the tenth day of every alternate month.
Earlier this month, in the neighbouring state of Karnataka, the DGP KA Saleem ordered the withdrawal of 3,000 constables on orderly duty from the residences of serving and retired police officers. For the record, the system had been officially banned in 2017 following widespread criticism and protests within the constabulary. Likewise, the Kerala government had abolished the ‘camp follower system’ eight years ago after allegations of assault of a police driver by the daughter of a serving ADGP.
Also Read: Haryana minister Anil Vij vs SP puts Rule 3 of All India Services to the test
Will the North follow this example from the South?
This appears to be yet another instance of the southern states emerging as torchbearers of social reform — including temple entry, mid-day meals in schools, land distribution, prioritising women’s health and education, and extending affordable road transport networks to the remotest villages.
While legislation and policy intent are relevant, more important is the commitment of the political leadership to ensure compliance. Take, for example, land reforms. The track record of land reforms in the southern states (and West Bengal) is way ahead of the Hindi belt. While Zamindari Abolition Acts of every state, from Bihar to Gujarat to MP and Haryana, were more or less the same, it was implementation that made the difference.
In other words, reforms require something more than the letter of the law. They need commitment from the top, a groundswell of support from the bottom, and an ecosystem in which key stakeholders — from civil society to the media, academia, and the judiciary — are all on the same page.
The etymology of constable
Before going further, let us examine the meaning of the word ‘constable’, and the dictionary meaning of ‘orderly’. The Belgian scholar Ernest Mandel traces the etymology of the term ‘constable’ to ‘stabuli’, meaning the “head serf of the stable… assigned by the [feudal] lord to minister to his needs.”
The Cambridge Dictionary describes an ‘orderly’ as an untrained assistant to a nurse in a hospital, or “a soldier who acts as an officer’s servant”. He is not expected to have any independent agency.
The system in India goes back to the colonial-era Police Act of 1861. It has to be acknowledged that road networks were nonexistent back then, and officers went on inspections and tours on horses and camped in dak bungalows. There was, therefore, some justification for attaching constables to officers for the maintenance of their weapons and upkeep of uniforms and, most importantly, to create an ‘aura of authority’ about the officers of the Raj.
Post-Independence, several homilies against the orderly system were issued from time to time, and this became a major point of contention between constables and their officers. Times had changed. In the colonial era, constables were drawn from the so-called martial races, and their claim to fame was their personal ‘loyalty’ to their officer. The new generation of constables was well educated, better trained, aware of their rights, and resentful of this practice.
The beneficiaries of the system, members of the IPS — the successor service to the IP — gave an interesting alibi to the National Police Commission (NPC) in 1977, stating that the orderly system “provides an opportunity for the men serving in the lowest rung of the ladder to come into contact on an unofficial level with his commander and see him as a fellow human being.”
It added: “Such a relationship generates trust, respect and affection, apart from providing the availability of a trained constable to receive visitors, spot suspects, question them intelligently besides attending to telephone calls and generally acting as security assistant to the officer to whom he is attached.”
Fortunately, this argument was rejected by all the members, and in its first report the NPC clearly stated: “There can be no two opinions regarding the impropriety of utilising constable orderlies on domestic chores… The constables are rightly agitated over the practice which smacks of a feudal set up and is highly derogatory to their sense of self-esteem and morale…We are convinced that the orderly system as it is now in vogue is vulnerable to malpractices which cannot be effectively got over by mere exhortations or instructions…we recommend that the orderly system as it exists at present be abolished.”
When the report was tabled in Parliament, there was unanimity on the need to prevent what the NPC report called a misuse of constables for “doing a lot of domestic chores and unauthorised personal work relating to the officers and their families like cooking, washing clothes, fetching grocery, etc.”
Tamil Nadu, for one, moved early on the issue, with the state government abolishing the orderly system through an order in 1979. It’s another matter that the practice continued, leading to repeated court interventions decades later.
Also Read: Indian police need urgent reforms. 2006 SC order yielded no results
Is real end to orderly system finally coming?
The 36th recommendation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission of 2005, as well as the Sixth Pay Commission in its report of 2008, recommended abolition of the orderly system.
In 2013, the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Home Affairs, headed by M Venkaiah Naidu (who later became the Vice President), observed that the “orderly system” functional in police forces is discriminatory and reminiscent of the British colonial era, affecting the morale of force personnel who are trained to provide security but are employed as cooks, drivers, attendants, etc. Recommending the complete abolition of the orderly system, the PSC maintained that posts of cooks, drivers, attendants, etc., if necessary, at the residences of senior officers should be sanctioned separately.
In parallel, the matter was also reaching the courts. In 2003, in the case of Rambrikash Singh v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Gauhati High Court (which had jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh) reviewed the orderly system and found that there was no specific statutory rule or executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution that formally authorised a distinct “orderly” system, distinguishing it from regular constable duties. The court examined administrative history dating back to 1967, including a 1978 Inspector General of Police (IGP) note and a 1979 Ministry of Home Affairs circular that advised abolition of the existing orderly system.
While implementation has been slow, there has also been pushback. On 21 September 2016, the Amit Shah-led Home Ministry issued an office memorandum (OM) relating to the Central Armed Police Forces, directing that “various privileges such as personnel at residences, vehicles, personal security, etc. be withdrawn within a period of one month”. The practice, though, seems to have continued. In September 2025, a serving DIG of BSF filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court against the non- implementation of the 2016 MHA OM. The matter is currently sub judice, but going by the trend of judicial pronouncements, it appears that the last nail in the coffin of the orderly system is about to be hammered.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)