Why politicos chary of police reforms

Earlier in one of my articles I was referring to the concept of the soft state propounded by Gunnar Myrdal in his book, ‘Asian drama,’ focusing on the state of affairs In South Asia, more particularly in India. There it was the gap between the legislation and its implementation. There is also another facet of soft state that is between the intention and the actual legislation. Police reforms fall into the second category of state declared intention to make a legislation and not being able to legislate for almost all four decades.

It all started when Janata Party came to power after emergency. The manner in which the police force was misused by the regime under Mrs Gandhi during emergency led the Janata government to think of comprehensive police reforms, more so, to insulate the police force from excessive interference by the political masters. Accordingly, National Commission for Police Reforms was constituted under the chairmanship of Dharam Veera, former Governor of Karnataka. The Commission gave a series of reports – eight in number – between 79 and 81 – in which they suggested a number of measures for reforms in the police force and a comprehensive police act to replace the existing police act which was formulated during the British period in 1861.

In between there was a change in the government with Mrs Gandhi coming back to power. The recommendations of the Police Commission did not find particular favour with the new regime since the Police Commission made reference to the Shah Commission and the excesses committed during the Emergency. The report was circulated for action in 1983 by the Central government to the states with a caveat to the state governments to ignore certain observations of the commission which are critical of the political system and the police force in general. Since then these recommendations of the Police Commission are with the state governments, conveniently put in the cold storage. Since police is a state subject, necessary legislation needs to be made at the level of the state governments.

In 1996, Prakash Singh, the retired DGP of Uttar Pradesh, carried the matter in public interest litigation to the Supreme Court and the matter was finally heard and decided by the Supreme Court in 2006. The Honourable Supreme Court maintained that the police should be guided by the rule of law and should be responsible to the laws of the land and to the people than to their political masters. They reiterated the main recommendations of the Police Commission as guidelines and ordered that the same should be followed by the state governments till a comprehensive police act is promulgated by the respective state governments as recommended by the Police Commission.

Some of the main recommendations of the Police Commission reiterated by the Supreme Court as guidelines are that there should be a State Security Council which should function as a buffer between the state government and the police force. Police officers working on the operational side should have a fixed tenure and the selection of the DGP should be done out of a panel prepared by the UPSC and he should have a minimum tenure and there should be a police complaint cell to look after the complaints from public against the police and Investigating wing should be separated from law and order.

To the extent of my knowledge, no state government has so far gone in for a comprehensive legislation covering the recommendations of the Police Commission. Even the Supreme Court guidelines are not observed in letter and spirit but wherever it suits them, governments are abusing the guidelines in an ingenuous way. One such guideline which is misused across the country is the one relating to the appointment of the head of the police force i.e., the DGP.

What most of the state governments do is to appoint a person of their choice as an in-charge DGP and at the time of his retirement approach the UPSC for preparation of a panel and ensure the existing person’s name is included in that and select him and give him a tenure of two years. Thus, the very spirit of the guidelines of giving a tenure and section by UPSC set by the Supreme Court to ensure the independence of the DGP is given the go-by and he is made to depend on the state governments for his continuance as in-charge DGP and also later for a tenure beyond the age of retirement. Political system today in the country is dependent on use, abuse and misuse of raw power.

Police represents power. Hence, the very existence of the political system and its continuance depends on the management and appropriate use and misuse of the police force. For this reason, present political system no matter which party is in power may not particularly take steps for implementation of the recommendations of the Police Commission. The very fact that the guidelines of honourable Supreme Court in this regard are also violated or abused is itself a sad commentary on the very functioning of the polity.

During the Janata regime, two Commissions were appointed – one was the Mandal Commission the other was the Police Commission. Since there was a vote bank to pursue and immediate benefits in terms of posts and positions are seen, the Mandal Commission got implemented whereas the Police Commission recommendations are yet to see the light of the day even after half a century, though the implementation of these reforms will lead to qualitatively better administration benefiting the society as a whole.

By: Krishna Rao Iyr