On June 14, without garnering much media attention, the Maharashtra state government cleared a bill on police reform that could lead to a greater degree of political involvement in the functioning of the police force.
The Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill has now raised a storm amongst activists pushing for police reforms. They claim the bill was passed in a hurry, with no proper discussion amongst legislators in the Assembly, and with potentially serious consequences for policing in the state.
“The Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill was passed almost surreptitiously by the government, without making it available for public discussion,” said Dolphy D’Souza, convener of the Police Reforms Watch, a non-profit advocacy group. “If the bill becomes a law, it will officially sanction political interference in decisions about police postings and transfers.”
According to activists the amendments in the bill contradict a Supreme Court judgement on police reforms from eight years ago. In 2006, in response to a ten-year-old public interest litigation petition filed by former director general of police Prakash Singh, the Supreme Court issued a set of directives that the central and state governments were to to comply with until each state framed their own legislation on police reform.
Watching the Police
One of the directives of the apex court, for instance, was that states must set up a State Security Commission, a kind of watchdog that would ensure the police functions without pressure from the government and acts in accordance with the law. This commission had to be chaired by the state home minister, have the DGP as its ex-officio secretary and at least one judge as a member.
The Maharashtra government opposed the formation of such a commission in 2007, claiming that it would be in violation of the Bombay Police Act of 1951, which places the police under the control and supervision of the state government. The new bill, although it makes provisions for a State Security Commission, has no judge as a member and instead includes positions for three members of the home ministry in it.
While the Supreme Court stated that any recommendations of the State Security Commission would be binding, the bill makes these “advisory in nature”, diluting the powers of the commission.
Another Supreme Court directive stated that a DGP must be selected by the state government for a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of his retirement. The bill, however, gives the state government authority to remove a DGP from the post even before the expiry of his tenure.
The Court also directed in 2006 that each state should set up a Police Complaints Authority to look into complaints against senior police officers. A state-level complaints authority would be headed by a retired high court judge, while a district-level complaints authority would be headed by a retired district court judge.
The bill in Maharashtra, however, also makes provisions for serving police officers to be a part of the Police Complaints Authority. Activists say this is tantamount to allowing someone to judge their own case. In addition, the bill states that any PCA report would be subject to the discretion of the state government.
Since February this year, the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill had been promulgated as an ordinance twice before being cleared as a bill. It now needs the approval of Governor K Sankaranarayanan in order to become a law.
On June 30, members of the Police Reforms Watch met the governor and appealed to him to withhold his approval and send the bill back to the Assembly for proper discussion and debate.
“The main problem with the bill is that it gives the political class a lot of power to take over the running of the police force,” said Julio Ribeiro, a retired police officer who has served as the DGP of at least two states during his career. The fear, he says, is that transfers will soon happen on the basis of patronage and not merit.
“Politicians want to be able to transfer even junior rank police officers, and if it is allowed to happen, it will eventually affect citizens,” said Ribeiro. “Police officers who receive political patronage may not care as much about justice, law and order.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill has now raised a storm amongst activists pushing for police reforms. They claim the bill was passed in a hurry, with no proper discussion amongst legislators in the Assembly, and with potentially serious consequences for policing in the state.
“The Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill was passed almost surreptitiously by the government, without making it available for public discussion,” said Dolphy D’Souza, convener of the Police Reforms Watch, a non-profit advocacy group. “If the bill becomes a law, it will officially sanction political interference in decisions about police postings and transfers.”
According to activists the amendments in the bill contradict a Supreme Court judgement on police reforms from eight years ago. In 2006, in response to a ten-year-old public interest litigation petition filed by former director general of police Prakash Singh, the Supreme Court issued a set of directives that the central and state governments were to to comply with until each state framed their own legislation on police reform.
Watching the Police
One of the directives of the apex court, for instance, was that states must set up a State Security Commission, a kind of watchdog that would ensure the police functions without pressure from the government and acts in accordance with the law. This commission had to be chaired by the state home minister, have the DGP as its ex-officio secretary and at least one judge as a member.
The Maharashtra government opposed the formation of such a commission in 2007, claiming that it would be in violation of the Bombay Police Act of 1951, which places the police under the control and supervision of the state government. The new bill, although it makes provisions for a State Security Commission, has no judge as a member and instead includes positions for three members of the home ministry in it.
While the Supreme Court stated that any recommendations of the State Security Commission would be binding, the bill makes these “advisory in nature”, diluting the powers of the commission.
Another Supreme Court directive stated that a DGP must be selected by the state government for a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of his retirement. The bill, however, gives the state government authority to remove a DGP from the post even before the expiry of his tenure.
The Court also directed in 2006 that each state should set up a Police Complaints Authority to look into complaints against senior police officers. A state-level complaints authority would be headed by a retired high court judge, while a district-level complaints authority would be headed by a retired district court judge.
The bill in Maharashtra, however, also makes provisions for serving police officers to be a part of the Police Complaints Authority. Activists say this is tantamount to allowing someone to judge their own case. In addition, the bill states that any PCA report would be subject to the discretion of the state government.
Since February this year, the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill had been promulgated as an ordinance twice before being cleared as a bill. It now needs the approval of Governor K Sankaranarayanan in order to become a law.
On June 30, members of the Police Reforms Watch met the governor and appealed to him to withhold his approval and send the bill back to the Assembly for proper discussion and debate.
“The main problem with the bill is that it gives the political class a lot of power to take over the running of the police force,” said Julio Ribeiro, a retired police officer who has served as the DGP of at least two states during his career. The fear, he says, is that transfers will soon happen on the basis of patronage and not merit.
“Politicians want to be able to transfer even junior rank police officers, and if it is allowed to happen, it will eventually affect citizens,” said Ribeiro. “Police officers who receive political patronage may not care as much about justice, law and order.”
