Police Reform Initiatives in India: Success & Failure

In too many countries, governments are failing in their primary duty to provide the public with an
honest, efficient, effective police service that ensures the rule of law and an environment of safety
and security. The only legitimate policing is policing that helps create an environment free from
fear and conducive to the realization of people’s human rights. The existing police system in many
Commonwealth states including India are a legacy of colonial rule that have been shaped by post-
colonial histories. The consequences of poor policing include brutality and torture, extra-judicial
executions, a lack of due process, impunity, corruption, bias and discrimination and public fear,
anger and resentment.

India’s police are governed by archaic and colonial police laws harking back to 1861. There has
been almost 30 years of debate on policing and reform in India, with commission after
commission submitting reports and recommendations to governments. Each report has gone
unimplemented. At the end of 2006, there was a shift in the reform process, with a Supreme Court
decision that required Indian governments to ensure police accountability and the release of a
draft Model Police Act by a national Police Act Drafting Committee.

In 1996, two former Director Generals of Police filed a public interest case with the Indian
Supreme Court. In the case (Prakash Sing v/s Union of India), they requested the Supreme Court
to direct central and state governments to address the poor quality and performance of police in
India. In 2006, the Court ruled that given the “gravity of the problem” and “total uncertainty as to
when police reforms would be introduced” it would issue “appropriate directions for immediate
compliance”. In passing these directives the Court put on record the deep rooted problems of
politicization, lack of accountability mechanisms and systemic weakness that have resulted in
poor all round performance and fomented present public dissatisfaction with policing. The seven
directives can be broadly divided into two categories: those seeking to achieve functional
responsibility for the police and those seeking to enhance police accountability. They are as
enumerated below:

1. Functional autonomy

Functional autonomy requires a balancing between ensuring the police are free from illegitimate
political interference and are not in a position to abuse their power. In India today, illegitimate
political interference in police operations is routine. To redress this imbalance, the Supreme Court
directed for the creation of State Security Commission (SSC) to ensure that the state government
does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police. The Court also directed to
ensure that the DGP and other police officers on operational duties are provided a minimum
tenure of two years. Directives also included the separation of investigation and law and order
functions of the police as well as the set up of a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide
transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers.

2. Accountability

Functional accountability must in turn be balanced with accountability. The police must be
accountable as an organization and officers must be accountable as individuals for their actions.
The Supreme Court directed the set up of a Police Complaint Authority (PCA) at state and district
level to inquire into public complaints against police officers. The Court also directed the set up
of a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and
placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organizations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two
years.

Model Police Act

The Supreme Court directives have provided a general framework for reform. Governments need to
build processes and mechanisms into legislation that sits in this framework; the Model Police Act
produced by the Police Act Drafting Committee is a useful template for this process. The Model
Police Act can assist governments in setting issues such as process and criteria for the appointment
of members to oversight bodies, the functions and powers of oversight bodies and the relationship
between internal and external mechanisms.

State Compliance with Supreme Court directives:

Not all states have complied with the Supreme Court Guidelines. Only 11 states have come up
with a new Police Act/Bill. Others have either completed a draft act or established a drafting
committee or have not yet done anything. The central government and most of the states have
filed affidavits and applied for review of different parts of the directive.

Even after the directives from the Indian Supreme Court, political will remains a hurdle. At the date
of publication, it remained unclear whether the state governments - or even the union government -
would comply with the directions of the Supreme Court or implement the recommendations
contained in the Model Police Act in spirit. Although the Supreme Court directions are binding on
governments, many are opposed to their implementation and may legislate to avoid compliance
with important aspects of the Court's directions, which they think will curtail their powers to
control the police.