It would be no exaggeration to say that we would have been saved the trauma of several riots and massacres, scandals and scams which have rocked the country, if the police had not become a pliable instrument in the hands of the executive, as it has unfortunately become.” This was stated in the petition on Police Reforms filed in the Supreme Court as far back as 1996.
The petitioner drew attention to several incidents when the police remained a mute spectator to lawlessness being perpetrated by rioters simply because they had the tacit support of the ruling party. It was mentioned inter alia that during the Delhi riots of 1984, the police did not take action against the organised gangs which massacred about 3,000 Sikhs in the capital, merely because they belonged to or had the backing of the party in power. The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment in 2006 with a view to insulating the police from extraneous pressures. However, the states are still dragging their feet in implementing the judicial directions.
And now, we have had violence and destruction on a large scale in Haryana in February 2016, during the agitation for reservations. The state police and the bureaucracy, both of which had been politicised during the last decade or so, either abdicated their functions, or at best, discharged their duties in a lackadaisical manner, giving a long rope to the agitators. According to an article published in The Tribune on 4 March 2016, “Not even the entire combined jihadi cadres of the Laksh-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad could have inflicted damage on this scale”.
How many more tragedies is the country going to suffer before police reforms are implemented in letter and spirit by the state governments? There are more than 20,000 police stations and posts across the length and breadth of the country, and their working impinges on the life of the common man from Srinagar to Kanyakumari, and from Ahmedabad to Aizwal, irrespective of whether he has a complaint or not. It is a sad commentary on our Republic that we have not been able to transform the police into an instrument of service upholding the Rule of Law and inspiring confidence among the people.
It needs to be emphasised that police reforms are absolutely essential if India is to emerge as a great power. Economic progress cannot be sustained if we are not able to generate a safe and secure environment. The democratic structure may also crumble if we do not arrest the trend of criminals gaining ascendancy in public life.
Supreme Court’s directions
The Supreme Court, in its historic judgment of September 22, 2006 on police reforms, directed the setting up of three institutions, namely:
Besides, the apex curt ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission), and that he shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the IG (Inspector-General) Zone, DIG (Deputy Inspector General) Range, SP (Superintendent of Police) i/c District and SHO (Station House Officer) i/c Police Station would also have a minimum tenure of two years.
The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise, and improved rapport with the people. The Union Government was asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organisations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces, and improving the service conditions of its personnel.
The aforesaid orders were to be implemented by the end of 2006. The time limit was subsequently extended till March 31, 2007. Seventeen states have passed bills/acts, but unfortunately these are not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Court’s directions. Actually, these were passed to circumvent the implementation of Supreme Court’s directions. The other states have issued executive orders purportedly in compliance of the Court’s directions, but in actual fact, they have amended or diluted the directions. The Thomas Committee which was appointed by the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of its directions expressed “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being exhibited by the States”, in its report dated August 23, 2010.
The Justice Verma Committee, which was constituted to examine amendments to Criminal Law in the context of a gang rape incident which happened in Delhi on December 16, 2012, deplored that:
“The Supreme Court’s judgment of 2006 in Prakash Singh’s case giving certain directions for the autonomy and improving the quality of the police force remain to be implemented by all the governments. Action in this behalf does not brook any further delay.”
The Committee urged “all states to fully comply with all six Supreme Court directives in order to tackle systemic problems in policing which exist today”. It went on to say that:
“We believe that if the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh are implemented, there will be a crucial modernisation of the police to be service oriented for the citizenry in a manner which is efficient, scientific, and consistent with human dignity.”
The present position may be summarised as below:
The Government of India should, without any further delay, pass a central legislation on the subject on the lines of the Model Police Act drafted by the Soli Sorabjee Committee, incorporating therein the directions of the Supreme Court, and persuade the state governments to either implement the mandatory directions of the Supreme Court, or pass laws under Article 252 of the Constitution on the lines of the central legislation on the subject.
The Supreme Court’s directions, it needs to be emphasised, are not for the glory of the police – they are to give better security and protection to the people of the country, uphold their human rights and generally improve governance. If sincerely implemented, they would have far reaching implications and change the working philosophy of the police. The Ruler’s Police would be transformed into People’s Police.
Where else are reforms needed?
Apart from the core areas identified by the Supreme Court, reforms are urgently required in some other fields also: Manpower: The police-population ratio in India works out to 181 personnel per lakh of population, while the standard prescribed by the UN is 222 per lakh of population. What is worse, there are huge vacancies in several states. According to the BPR&D (Bureau of Police Research and Development), the actual strength of the police force was 16,60,666 against the sanctioned strength 22,09,027. The vacancies need to be filled up so that the police-to-population ratio improves and comes close to international standards.
Infrastructure: There are deficiencies in motor transport, communications and forensic support. According to the figures available, the police have slightly less than seven vehicles per hundred policemen. Communication-wise, there are 653 police stations in the country which have no telephone, 165 have no wireless, and there are 37 police stations which have neither telephone nor wireless. Forensic support is poor.
Housing: Housing facilities have a direct bearing on the morale of the personnel. These facilities are quite inadequate. The government is committed to providing accommodation to all the police personnel, but at present we have only 5.72 lakh family accommodations for 17.65 lakh police personnel. Housing facilities require substantial augmentation.
Training: This remains a neglected area. As recommended by the second Administrative Reforms Commission, the deputation to training institutions must be made more attractive in terms of facilities and allowances so that the best talent is drawn as instructors. Besides, training should focus on bringing attitudinal change in police so that they are more sensitive to citizens’ needs.
Modernisation: Modernisation of the police force should get high priority. The Comptroller and Auditor General has, in a recent report, revealed that progress in enhancing the mobility of the police and giving it sophisticated weapons and other equipment has been tardy. The process must be accelerated. The Government of India has approved the modernisation plan for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. Priority should be given to: Cyber security, counter terrorism/insurgency, training and use of technology in various aspects of policing.
Registration of crime: This is a very sore point with the people. There is concealment and minimisation of crime on a big scale. To a large extent, politicians are responsible for it. In the state of Uttar Pradesh, for example, sometime back directions were given by the state government that crime figures be brought down by 70%, and quite a few senior officers who could not execute this firman were placed under suspension. Opposition parties also make a hue and cry to tarnish the image of the government if crime figures show an increase. The society as a whole should accept the inevitability of increase in crime with every passing year. Delhi Police has given good lead in this direction.
Conclusion
Looked at from any angle – security of the common man, survival of democracy, maintaining the trajectory of economic progress or tackling the major threats confronting the country – there is no getting away from the inescapable conclusion that we must have a reformed, restructured and revitalised police force. There has already been great delay. Police reforms are much too urgent to be delayed any longer. A professional police accountable to the people of the country and placing the highest importance to upholding the Rule of Law will provide the essential foundation for a progressive, modern India taking its rightful place in the comity of nations.