In its 2006 order in Prakash Singh vs Union of India, the Supreme Court said that Indian police need to be made accountable through seven measures. Not a single state has implemented them in their entirety. Here are the things that could make the police work for you and me, rather than their political masters. As the Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi demands control over the Delhi Police, it could look at this critical pending reform.
The point of these steps is to provide checks and balances over executive control of the police – that is, not let them be fiefdoms of the ruling party. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, whose Access to Justice programme tracks the implementation of these directives, says there's still a long way to go. Last year, the Supreme Court hauled up six states -- Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh -- for failing to comply with these directives.
Here are the seven steps:
1) Constitute an independent State Security Commission with various stakeholders as members. The SSC would ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; lay down broad policy guidelines; and evaluate the performance of the state police.
Only three states -- Rajasthan, Mizoram and Sikkim -- have set up state security commissions according to the Supreme Court guidelines. Some 22 have set up toothless paper bodies. In most states, the recommendations of the SSC are not binding, though they should be as per the court directive. Few chief ministers are willing to give up their complete control over the police.
2) Ensure that the state's Director General of Police is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years appointment. Only Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have adopted this. While 13 other states have granted a fixed two-year tenure to the DGP, they are unwilling to make the process of the DGP's appointment an independent one.
3) Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, are in full compliance with this directive. Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, and Uttar Pradesh are in total non-compliance. Others are in compliance only partially.
4) Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. Fourteen states have complied completely and two partially. These include UP and Bihar, but not Delhi or any Union Territory.
5) Set up a Police Establishment Board to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Many states have followed this half-heartedly but Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tamil Nadu have created PEBs according to Supreme Court guidelines. One state has done nothing whatsoever on this front: Bihar.
6) Set up a Police Complaints Authority at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct.
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Andhra Pradesh have completely ignored this one, not even pretending to create a paper tiger like other states. Only Arunachal Pradesh has set up such PCAs at both the state and the district level. Kerala has set them up at the district level.
7) Set up a National Security Commission at the central level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations with a minimum tenure of two years.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The point of these steps is to provide checks and balances over executive control of the police – that is, not let them be fiefdoms of the ruling party. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, whose Access to Justice programme tracks the implementation of these directives, says there's still a long way to go. Last year, the Supreme Court hauled up six states -- Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh -- for failing to comply with these directives.
Here are the seven steps:
1) Constitute an independent State Security Commission with various stakeholders as members. The SSC would ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; lay down broad policy guidelines; and evaluate the performance of the state police.
Only three states -- Rajasthan, Mizoram and Sikkim -- have set up state security commissions according to the Supreme Court guidelines. Some 22 have set up toothless paper bodies. In most states, the recommendations of the SSC are not binding, though they should be as per the court directive. Few chief ministers are willing to give up their complete control over the police.
2) Ensure that the state's Director General of Police is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years appointment. Only Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have adopted this. While 13 other states have granted a fixed two-year tenure to the DGP, they are unwilling to make the process of the DGP's appointment an independent one.
3) Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, are in full compliance with this directive. Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, and Uttar Pradesh are in total non-compliance. Others are in compliance only partially.
4) Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. Fourteen states have complied completely and two partially. These include UP and Bihar, but not Delhi or any Union Territory.
5) Set up a Police Establishment Board to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Many states have followed this half-heartedly but Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tamil Nadu have created PEBs according to Supreme Court guidelines. One state has done nothing whatsoever on this front: Bihar.
6) Set up a Police Complaints Authority at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct.
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Andhra Pradesh have completely ignored this one, not even pretending to create a paper tiger like other states. Only Arunachal Pradesh has set up such PCAs at both the state and the district level. Kerala has set them up at the district level.
7) Set up a National Security Commission at the central level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations with a minimum tenure of two years.
