Introduction: India achieved independence 60 years ago…. a lot of changes has occurred nationally/ internationally since than… from an undeveloped nation, we became a developing nation and are now being talked about of becoming a developed nation soon.. A lot of changes have occurred, have they really? Well, at least one thing for sure has not: The archaic Police Act of 1861, enacted when we were slaves, by which we are ruled even today!
Policing is a State Subject under the Indian Constitution. Every state must enact their own Police Acts. But most states have chosen to adopt the 1861 Act. Some states have enacted their own Acts but even these closely resemble the 1861 Act.
The result is therefore everyone to see: Police forces everywhere have been either rendered ineffective (with no autonomy because of the interference from Politics/Mafias) or they have become abusive (Police forces have become non-accountable, as whatever mechanisms were devised to make them accountable, have failed).
Time for a change: Well, if the things have not changed so far, it does not mean it would never! This movement for change was initiated by two former policemen themselves.
On 30th July1996, two former Director Generals of Police (Prakash Singh & N.K. Singh) took the issue to the Supreme Court (through a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996), requesting the Court to direct central and state governments to address the most glaring gaps and bad practice in the functioning of the police.
After a decade when the PIL was admitted, on 22nd September 2006, the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment on it, instructing central and state governments to comply with a set of seven directives laying down practical mechanisms to kick-start reform.They include recommendations from many of the commissions and committees on police reform that have sat in India over the last 25 years.
These directives can be broadly divided into two categories: Those seeking to achieve functional Autonomy for the police (Part I) & Those seeking to enhance police Accountability (Part II).
Part I: Functional autonomy Directive 1. State Security Commission: The state governments are directed to constitute a State Security Commission to: # Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police. # Lay down broad policy guidelines. # Evaluate the performance of the state police.
Directive 2. Director General of Police State government is to ensure that the Director General of Police is appointed through a merit based, transparent process and enjoys a minimum tenure of two years.
Directive 3. Minimum tenure for other police officers State government is to 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) also have a minimum tenure of two years.
Directive 4. Police Establishment Board State government is to set up a Police Establishment Board, which will decide all 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 of officers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Directive 5. National Security Commission State government is to set up a National Security Commission at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO), who should also be given a minimum tenure of two years.
Part II: Accountability Directive 6. Police Complaints Authority State government is to set up independent Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels to look into public complaints against police officers in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody.
Directive 7. Separation of investigation and law and order police State government is to separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.
What is the status of judgment? Chronology of the events which followed since the judgment was passed:
22 September 2006: Supreme Court delivers judgment on the Prakash Singh petition, gives states till 3 Jan 2007 to comply.
11 January 2007 Supreme Court hearing monitoring compliance with its directives of September 2006. Deadline imposed by Supreme Court for immediate compliance with directives 2,3,5 through executive orders.
31st March 2007 Extension for implementation of remaining directives 1,4,6,7.
10th April 2007 Deadline to file affidavits of compliance.
31 August 2007 Supreme Court hearing on contempt petition (filed by Prakash Singh) and applications for extension/modifications.
Which states have complied with the judgment? The status of implementation of the judgment by the individual states varies from “Compliant” to “Non compliant”. State wise compliance can be seen here.
What is the role of LFR: We have not much made headway in these particular activities. What we are trying to do is to lobby for the legislature through the general public. We are working on these activities with the Common wealth Human Rights Initiative, Delhi Office. We also intend to invoke Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 – so that we can ensure the draft legislation that goes before State Assemblies and Parliament is in the public domain and has been made available for comment under proactive disclosure provisions in the said section of the RTI-2005.
For your any further query, we would be happy to answer. You can contact us at emaillfr@gmail.com. We would also be happy if you post your comments on this topic below.
