ALSO READ : Who is Afraid of Police Reforms? And Why?

'POLICE REFORM'

Efforts to scuttle Police Reform initiatives

17-11-2006
-----------
NOTE : This appeal is created by Manitham - www.manitham.net, with the support of Dr P J Alexander, Director, Indian Institute of Police Studies & former DGP of Kerala State.

Who is Afraid of Police Reforms? And Why?
Prof. (Dr.) P.J. Alexander *

About two months back, on 22nd of September 2006 to be exact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave a ‘judicial nudge’ to the ever, elusive quest for police reforms. It didn’t come a day earlier. The National Police Commission (1979-81) had submitted its 8th and final report on 31 May 1981-over 25 years back. This Volume dealt primarily with ‘Accountability of Police Performance’, had a brief overview of police prospects in the coming years and a model Police Act to replace the “existing, outmoded Police Act of 1861”, so essential for the incorporation of their recommendations. Shri Prakash Singh, a former Director General, exasperated like many others like him, at the total inaction on the part of all concerned to implement the recommendations of the National Police Commission, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution “praying for issue of directions to the Government of India to frame a new Police Act on the lines of the model Act drafted by the Commissions in order to ensure that the Police is made accountable essentially and primarily to the law of the land and the people. It was in 1996- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996. In their order in Prakash Singh and Ors Vs. Union of India (UoI) and Ors, a three member Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Y.K. Sabharwal, painstakingly went through the annals of police reforms in this country, the Reports of the Law Commission, Report of the Human Rights Commission and a host of material relevant to police and criminal justice reforms. The Court noted that ‘police’ is a State subject, and quite candidly asked themselves: “The question, however is whether this Court should further wait for Government to take suitable steps for Police Reforms” and concluded, most logically, that they should not wait any further. They went on to say “Having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem ; (ii) the urgent need for preservation and strengthening of Rule of Law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv) the fact that various Commissions and Committees have made recommendations on similar lines for introducing reforms in the police set up in this country (v) total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced, we think that there cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come for issue of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be operative till such time a new model Police Act prepared by the Central Government and / or the State Governments pass requisite legislations”.

As sequel, the directives were issued.

The Court had examined whether it was constitutionally mandated to interfere in the issue and observed “ Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to issue such directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. All authorities are mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the Orders passed by this Court. The decision in Vineet Narain’s Case (supra) notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be observed were issued in absence of legislation and implemented till legislatures pass appropriate legislation”.

It can be seen from the orders of the Supreme Court that notice of the petition was served on State Governments and Union Territories and that “…..for most of the State Governments / Union Territories oral submissions were not made. None of the State Governments / Union Territories urged that any of the suggestions put forth by the Petitioners and Solicitor General of India may not be accepted”. The Apex Court heard Shri.Prashant Bhushan for the Petitioners, Shri. G.E. Vahanvati the Solicit General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu Malhotra for the National Human Rights Commission and Ms. Swati Mehta for the Common Welfare Initiatives. Pointed reference is seen made to the recommendations of the National Police Commission (1977-81) various other high powered Committees and Commissions like the National Human Rights Commission, Law Commission, Ribero Committee, Padmanabhayya Committee and Malimat Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System.

The Supreme Court was fully seized of the ground realities with regard to policing in this Country. They referred to the letter of the Union Home Minister dated 3 August 1997, to the State Governments in which “the Home Minister while echoing the overall popular perception that there has been a general fall in the performance of the police as also a deterioration in the policing system as a whole in the country, expressed that time had come to rise above limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by unhealthy developments. It was expressed that the popular perception all over the country appears to be that many of the deficiencies in the functioning of the police had arisen largely due to an over dose of unhealthy and petty political interference at various levels starting from transfer and posting of police men of different ranks, misuse of police for partisan purposes and political patronage quite often extended to corrupt police personnel. The Union Home Minister expressed the view that rising above narrow and partisan considerations, it is of great national importance to insulate the police from the growing tendency of partisan or political interference in the discharge of its lawful functions of prevention and control of crime, including investigation of cases and maintenance of public order”. It is of great interest to note that this Home Minister was none other than Indrajit Gupta of the Communist Party of India, the first Communist to occupy the post of Union Home Minister. Are not his concerns and conclusions any longer relevant, even to a C PM Home Minister?

It is presumptuous to comment on the language or logic of a judgment of the Apex Court, even in appreciation. However, this is a pivotal moment in the struggle for police reforms and this particular Order, no doubt a landmark in the cause of police and criminal justice reform, has to be complimented for its brevity, deepinsights, extensive analysis of all related and relevant material and sharply focused conclusions. The mood of the Court is one of anguish and not anger. The Order strongly suggests that the Apex Court itself found the situation
to be hopelessly flawed, stifling and suffocating. The Chief Justice of India who authored the judgment was echoing the hopes and aspirations of generations of police personnel and millions of right thinking people, when he observed that “….. we can only express our hope that all State Governments would rise to the occasion and enact a new Police Act wholly insulating the police from any pressure what so ever by placing in position an important measure for securing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution for the Rule of Law, treating everyone equal and being partisan to none, which will also help in securing an efficient and better criminal justice delivery system. It is not possible or proper to leave this matter only with an expression of this hope and to await developments further. It is essential to lay down guidelines to be operative till the new legislation is enacted by the State Governments”. The directives touch upon the following issues only:-

• A State Security Commission in every State / A National Security Commission by the Union Government.
• Selection process and minimum tenure for the Director General of Police and certain other functionaries.
• Separation of investigation
• Police Establishment Board
• Police Complaints Authority

The Apex Court had set a time limit – affidavits of compliance are scheduled for 3 January 2007.

In the last two months the mood of the people in this country with regard to police reforms was one of robust optimism. At last, they felt, that the directives, the long overdue push, came from the Apex Court. They had come to realize that such an initiative would not come from any where else. The directives were discussed and debated at various levels. The country and the people, hope that the New Year would see some realistic response to the unfinished agenda of police reforms.

However a week back News Paper reports form Kerala indicated that the Home Minister of that State has written to the Union Home Minister to convene a meeting of the Home Ministers of different States to discuss the directives of the Supreme Court and has taken steps to move the Supreme Court for a review. This was nothing short of the proverbial bolt from the blue.

In fact it was earnestly hoped by the people at large, that the Communist Party (Marxist) led Ministry with a Home Minister from the CPM would show the way by hastening to implement the directives of the Supreme Court. The Minister himself had given strong indications that he has very receptive to the demand for police reforms. It may be recalled that Kerala was the first among the States (re organized on linguistic basis)in India, under a Communist Party led ministry, with Shri E.M.S Nambuthripad as Chief Minister and Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer (later Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer ) as Home Minister which launched the very first initiative aimed to reform the police. A ‘Kerala Police Reorganisation Committee was constituted with such eminent jurists and public men like N.C. Chatterjee, S. Mohan Kumarmangalam, S. Guru Swami and P.N. Krishna Pillai, on 15th January 1959. The Terms of Reference were quite ahead of the times. The Committee submitted their Report, rather abruptly, on 29 January 1960 with recommendations on some items of the Terms of Reference. Most of the recommendations were progressive and forward looking. The Communist Party (Marxist) led ministries had come in to office, not less than for four spells after 1960 but no steps were taken to implement at least selectively, any of the recommendations. The Report of the National Police Commission was with the State Government when they appointed on 30 July 1982 a Police Re-organization Commission. The present author was the Member-Secretary of this Commission, which submitted its Final Report on 13 February 1997.

The Reports of the National Police Commission or the Commission mentioned above were also not acted upon. Despite such callous indifference to Police Commissions and their Reports, another Commission, “ Police Performance and Accountability Commission with no less a person than Justice K.T. Thomas, formerly of the Supreme Court, was appointed in 2004 by the then Chief Minister who held the Home portfolio. The Report of this Commission is also gathering dust in the morgue of police reforms efforts. The present Home Minister had stated on several occasions that he is having the recommendations of the various Commissions, including the Chatterjee Commission of 1960 vintage examined for implementation. He had also generally welcomed the directives issued by the Apex Court. It was therefore absolutely shocking and disturbing to find the very same Minister spear heading a move to abort the police reforms process kick-started by the Apex Court. We have not yet heard the Minister’s justification for the present stance. Marxist Party M.L.A.s and spokesmen trot out the following in defense of their present stand: the Home Minister is accountable to the Legislature and therefore the supervision of the police cannot be taken over by a State Security Commission; nor can the selection process for the post of Director General or a fixed tenure for him and some others, be accepted. Given the fact that the Supreme Court directives touch just five issues, it leaves the Kerala Home Minister with precious little to implement. Is this the defense of the Home Minister too?

If so the cat is now out of the bag. The Home Minister (s) keenly desires to keep the control of the police in his hands; he would like to select the officer (D.G.P) to head the Department; he would not keep anyone in any post for any fixed tenure; rather he would like to shuffle them like a pack of cards as, and when he feels like. The questions we posed at the start of this piece, stand answered well and truly. The case made by Prakash Singh was that the police should be accountable to the law of the land and the people. The Supreme Court had found that ‘…..the quality of Criminal Justice system in the country, to a large extent, depends upon the police force. Thus, having regard to the larger public interest, it is absolutely necessary to issue the requisite directions’. Well, the Minister (s) probably cannot be agree with this reasoning of the Supreme Court. They therefore would like to the directives to be reviewed. Who can stop them?

It is crystal clear that the professional practitioners of politics have realized that the directives when implemented would make the police an agent of the law, accountable to the law and thus an important tool in strengthening the Rule of Law and enriching our democratic process. These are perhaps important objectives to be achieved; but they would not like to loosen their grip on the police, a grip with which they made use of the police for narrow political ends, all these years Our politicians, regardless of political affinities, have on many occasions ganged together when their interests were threatened. This could be one such occasion and the Kerala Home Minister would be in good company.

We are thus at a pivotal moment in the struggle for police reforms.

All those who have been working for police reforms, all those who champion the Rule of Law and all those clamour for greater content and quality in our democratic institutions should come together and take a stand. The move for a review of the directives of the Supreme Court should be resisted. After all, if every society gets the police they deserve, the present Indian society deserves a better police. In fact a new society needs a new police.

Are the politicians alone in the efforts to abort the initiatives for police reforms? No, certainly not. The many sycophants and cronies in the I P S who have shivered their way up, professing abject loyalty (servility ?) to the Minister, his family, children and even to his grand children, would not like his claims for the post of Director General vetted by the Union Public Service Commission. Such of those whose credentials are inadequate cannot be expected to submit meekly to a fair process of selection under the auspices of the Union Public Service Commission. So, if you look closely, you may see a few flat feet behind the politician. This is a strong combination. And who else? Long feuding sister All India Services also would be lending a helping hand.

It is thus a strong, formidable array of interests that have lined up against the very tentative steps towards police reforms. This is thus the most crucial moment for all well-meaning people of this country to make their voice heard; to come to the open and press their case for a clean and efficient police; a police accountable to the law and respecting the Rule of Law. Educating the public through debates and discussions, features and talk shows in the media and by all other means, is the first priority. Then the scene should shift to New Delhi to place our case before the Apex Court. We should also collectively search for other responses. The struggle for police reforms should not be given up at this stage. “Police Reforms – Too important to neglect, too urgent to delay”

* Formerly Director General of Police, Kerala, Professor and Director, Institute of Management in Government and currently Director, Institute of Police Studies.

- TOP