Need for police reforms in India

The Nirbhaya case and protests aftermath provide an occasion to examine certain fundamental assumptions about policing in India. It should be noted here that after the incident the Delhi police were blamed for failing to prevent such incidents. It is debatable whether the police alone were blameworthy here. Both the state and community at large have a role in shaping public safety, especially that of women and children.

Evolution of policing:

• The institution of police traces its origin to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, where he has described the genesis of the state and need to legitimise its authority through police as we know today.
• In modern world, London set up the Metropolitan Police in 1829 and a similar organisation was set up in New York too. This paved the way for organising the police in many western democracies and for our own police forces set up by the British in the early 1900s.
• The focus of law enforcement was initially on disciplining unruly elements disturbing public peace rather than on hunting for criminals depriving others of their life and property.
• Role of Police in a Parliamentary Democracy
• There is no doubt that police have a vital role in a parliamentary democracy.
• The police ensure safety and security of the society. The rate and complexity of the crime have increased over the years adding new dimensions to the responsibilities of police.
• The present Indian police system is largely a legacy of the British rule in India since it is based on the Police Act of 1861.

A.H.L Fraser Commission

• A.H.L Fraser, the chairman of the commission appointed by the British in 1902 said:The police force is far from efficient, it is defective in training and organizing, it is inadequately supervised, it is generally regarded as corrupt, oppressive and it utterly failed to secure the confidence and cordial cooperation of the people.
• Since 1902, little has changed. The functions of the police during the British time are different from the functions that are to be performed after the independence.
• After independence, India had adopted the most inclusive and comprehensive constitution to ensure the welfare of the citizens but the institution of police which is responsible for implementing the law and order was not overhauled.

Police is a State Subject

• Police is an exclusive state subject and the center has its limitations in this regard.
• After independence, some states came out with their own police acts.
• For example, the Bombay Police act, 1951; the Kerala Police act 1960; the Delhi Police act, 1978.
• However, all of these police acts were a replica of the Indian police act, 1861. This has in extreme situations made the situation of guardian turning predator and the confidence of the people has come down.

National Police Commission

• This was the first commission at the national level after independence.
• It had wide terms of reference covering the police organization, its role, functionality, accountability, relations with the public etc.
• This committee gave a comprehensive report and recommended to bring an autonomous body of organization which could be accountable to people. However, the major recommendations of this committee were not accepted by the government.
• The National Police Commission in its 8th and concluding report of 1981, submitted a new Police Bill for India. Thereafter in 2005 the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) to draft a Model Police Bill for India.
• Very shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, the PADC submitted its draft Model Police Bill, 2006 to the Home Ministry.
• This draft bill was also circulated among all state governments. It was hoped that state governments would enact their own police legislation whilst drawing on the best elements from the PADC’s Model Police Bill, the NPC’s Model Police Bill and the Supreme Court directives on police reform.
• This however never happened and almost seven years after the Supreme Court judgment as well as the Model Police Bill being submitted to the union government and union territories still have no new Police Act.

Recommendations of the National Police Commission First Report Complaints against the Police:

• According to the NPC, any arrangement for inquiry into complaints against police should be acceptable both to police and public as fair and just.
• The Commission therefore suggested arrangements, which would include inquiries conducted by departmental authorities and those conducted by an independent authority outside the police.
• The Commission felt that a large number of complaints against police should be looked into and disposed off by the supervisory ranks in the police hierarchy.
• The Commission however recommended that a judicial inquiry should be made mandatory in the following categories of complaints against the police:
• alleged rape of a woman in police custody;
• death or grievous hurt caused while in police custody; and
• death of two or more persons resulting from police firing in the dispersal of unlawful

Second Report Role of Police:

• The basic role of the police is to function as a law enforcement agency and render impartial service to law, without any heed to wishes, indications or desires expressed by the government which either come in conflict with, or do not conform to the provisions contained in the constitution or laws. This should be spelt out in the Police Act.
• The police should have duly recognised their service-oriented role in providing relief to people in distress situations. They should be trained and equipped to perform the service oriented functions.

Prakash Singh and others vs the Union of India (1995)

• In 1995, Prakash Singh, former DGP of Uttar Pradesh filed a PIL regarding police reforms in India.
• This led to the government constituting a new committee under the chairmanship of Julio Ribeiro, and the Julio Ribeiro Committee was formed in 1998.
• This was followed by further committees like Padmanabhaiah, Malimath committee, Soli Sorabjee committee.
• In 2006, since there were no movements in the direction of reforms, the Supreme Court made the police reforms a mandatory reform to be taken up by the central and state governments.

The Seven Directives by Supreme Court (2006)

• The apex court gave its nearly revolutionary directions in 2006, a decade after Mr. Singh first filed his petition. The states and union territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick-start reform.

Directive One
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:

• Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police.
• Lay down broad policy guideline.
• Evaluate the performance of the state police.

Directive Two
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through the merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.

Directive Three
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.

Directive Four
Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.

Directive Five
Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police 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.

Directive Six
Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) 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.

Directive Seven

• Set up 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.
• After this, 14 states have passed legislation but these were mainly to circumvent the directives but not to implement them. Till today, the government has not shown its commitment to follow the directives of the court in true letter and spirit.
• “Police reforms are going on and on. Nobody listens to our orders.” – Supreme Court
• “Police reforms are going on and on. Nobody listens to our orders.” This is how a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar reacted while declining the plea of a lawyer demanding immediate action to usher in major police reforms in the country (March 2017). The lawyer had earlier been permitted to implead himself in a pending PIL on the subject.
• It is sad that the highest court of the land is so helpless in the matter.

Need for police reforms:

• Crime, when initial police organizations came up, was a petty offence not requiring any sophisticated methods of investigation and detection. However, crime now is not only widespread and violent but also sophisticated with the abundant use of technology. Fallout is raising fear in a community, especially among elders, women and children.
• With the phenomenal expansion of the geographic area to be policed and the mind-boggling increase in the number of lives to be guarded, the Indian police, more than in many western democracies, have been stretched and outnumbered. There are only about 140 policemen per 100,000 people, a very poor ratio when compared to other modern democracies.
• Another criticism against the police is of their preoccupation with the problems of the political party in power and those of the rich and famous. This is why the 10,000-odd police stations in the country are shunned by the better-off sections, who prefer organising themselves to ward off threats or buy safety services from other sources.
• The phenomenal rise in private security agencies also accounts for the growing lack of trust in the state police. This is a shameful but real state of affairs in most of India.
• The security of the society and the welfare of the people is dependent on the efficiency of the police.
• To eliminate the undue political interference which led to the loss of autonomy of police? The police of today are victims of politicization as well as criminalization.
• To instil the confidence of the people in the institution of police by making police more people friendly.
• To prevent the highhandedness of police in the form of extra-judicial killings. Recently NHRC noted that 206 cases of encounters occurred in the last 12 months.
• To continue security and growth with our high economic growth, the maintenance of law and order plays a vital role.

Problems with existing Policing system

• The police do not have functional responsibility while remaining under the supervision of the political executive.
• Political control of police by the political executive is not conditioned and is not kept within its legitimate bounds.
• Internal management systems are not fair and transparent.
• Policing efficiencies have decreased in terms of their core functions.
• Public complaints are not addressed properly and police accountability is comparatively less.

Challenges faced by the police in the country:

• Lack of effective means to collect and analyse the intelligence data collected.
• Deteriorating quality of state investigation departments.
• Many apex organizations continue to have huge vacancies.
• Outdated arms and equipment.
• Lack of coordination within the police departments.
• Lack of proper training.
• Political interference.
• Challenges like police training and quantity of force along with the quality, the long working hours as well as the isolation of police force from the public in the form of separate living quarters should be looked into.
• Police should be made an integral part the society they live in.
• Police reforms should no longer be delayed and the civil society should play its role for faster action by the government.

Scope for improvement

• It is true that many young IPS officers lose their idealism early in their careers, because of fear of vengeful politicians or disloyal subordinates. They, therefore, become deadwood, which the force cannot get rid of without prolonged litigation. The fears of proactive and dedicated officers about reprisal over honest action against powerful men in society and politics are well-known.
• But how long will the citizen be satisfied with a non-performing police force? This is the question we should ask ourselves while discussing police reforms.
• It is not as if this is a problem that has suddenly come upon the police. It has only ballooned in recent times because of growing lawlessness promoted by big money and all that goes with it. Unless there is self-correction within the police, a process initiated by the DGP and his aides, we cannot see a perceptible change in the manner in which policing is carried out in most parts of the country.
• Just as there are many bright spots in the police forces, there are an equal number of enlightened elements in our polity, who are willing to listen to police woes. There is here a symbiotic relationship without activating which our police forces will remain condemned and shunned by the law-abiding citizen.

What’s the way out?

• Considering learning as a healthy public exercise, India should adopt tried and tested strategies from across the world.
• From New York Police Department: NYPD instituted a COMPSTAT (short for COMPuter STATistics) programme, that analysed crime with the help of computers, identified crime hotspots and took preventive action, such as intensified patrolling. Police commanders in New York were made to report to the commissioner each week explaining how they were tackling crime in their jurisdictions. This mechanism not only brought about greater attention to crime in the field but also enhanced police accountability at the grass-root level. The NYPD has recently gone beyond COMPSTAT by hiring a reputed private agency to survey public opinion on police performance. Focussed questions over mobile phones and the responses obtained look at how to fill visible gaps in policing.
• From London: London has launched a major campaign against street crime that involves frisking and seizure of knives — a visible, street-level operation that has enhanced security perceptions. The use of large manpower has been the hallmark of this operation. Physical checks of youth in the streets has added an element of deterrence. This is analogous to the ‘stop and frisk’ practice of the NYPD, whose focus on the non-white population has often drawn flak, especially from African-Americans.

Reforms required:

• Capacity within the police should be improved. This may be through focused training to keep pace with the changing nature of crime and prevention techniques, or the creation of IT infrastructure for tracking cases to tackle delays due to mounting pendency. It will also require investment in management techniques, soft skills, new technology, and building of databases to allow for seamless access to information, among other heads.

There are, however, few features which make Indian police unique:

• The availability of a corps of leadership in the form of technically savvy young Indian Police Service officers who have a stake in working closely with the community to carry out experiments in the field to upgrade safety at minimum cost to the government. They can borrow from several studies under the rubric of ‘evidence-based policing’.
• The spread of Internet use at all levels of the police. An offshoot is the use of social media in day-to-day policing. Information on crime incidents and criminals is as a matter of course conveyed to the public in many urban centres with encouraging results.
• Citizens are also encouraged to report crime through email or over social media. This practice gives no option for the police but to act without fail and swiftly.
• The participation of the print and visual media in this dialogue gives further fillip to the exercise of sensitising the police to the community demand for safety through police processes.

Way ahead:
The 22 September, 2006 verdict of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India case was the landmark in the fight for police reforms in India. In its directions, the court had pulled together recommendations generated since 1979. They make up a scheme, which, if implemented holistically, will cure common problems that perpetuate poor police performance and unaccountable law enforcement.

T P Senkumar Case

• T P Senkumar – DGP of Kerala – was transferred by the Left Democratic Front government led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to the Kerala Police Housing and Construction Ltd as its chairman and managing director. Lokanath Behara had replaced him as the new DGP.
• Though it may be argued that the government has the right to appoint a DGP of its choice, but Senkumar had argued that the case against him reeked of arbitrariness and was a result of his fair and efficient probe in the cases of political murders in the state, wherein some leaders of the present government were found to be accused.
• In a major verdict, the Supreme Court ordered the Kerala government to restore the services of ousted DGP T P Senkumar holding that his removal was arbitrary and not as per established law. It’s rare for the apex court to interfere in such appointments and the ruling has led to a debate on judicial overreach.

Conclusion:
The police’s perception of public safety and their own role here is changing, but only slowly. Many of us are impatient over the pace at which it is happening. We must realize that the Indian police is a behemoth and will respond faster only if there is constant pressure exerted on it by well-organised community leaders and the media.

The nation can no longer afford a politician’s police and it’s time for people’s police.

The Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms have not been complied with in letter and spirit by any state. Many states have enacted laws to legitimise the status quo and circumvent the implementation of the Court’s directions. Some states have passed executive orders which dilute or amend the SC’s directions. No wonder the Justice Thomas committee, which was set up to monitor the implementation of the Court’s directions, expressed a sense of “dismay” over the indifference to judicial directions.

The verdict in TP Senkumar case was in continuation of the Prakash Singh case that would be applicable to all the States. It’s high time that the states should obey the Supreme Court directives. Urgent steps should be taken by all states to set up police complaints authority, Security Commission and separate the law and order and investigation wings.