Rajan Kumar: Stalled police reforms

The Supreme Court has now said it will hear the government's plea on its judgement on sweeping police reforms on April 30, 2007 "" the judgement was passed in September last year. This is a radical departure from the Court's earlier unambiguous stand that no further extension can be granted.

Though the apex court had set March 31 as the deadline for the states and Centre for implementing its orders and filing their affidavits on compliance by April 10, 2007, the Centre expressed practical difficulties in implementing police reforms. First, on the constitution of the National Security Commission (NSC), consisting of three senior officers for the selection of the Director General of Police (DGP) with a minimum tenure of 2 years, the Centre argued that the proposed NSC may result in a situation where an officer may have to consider his own name for appointment as the police chief of the central para-military forces. Further, the Centre argued that there were only about 40 police officers whose names were being considered for appointment as the DGPs. Of these, just 15 have service tenures exceeding two years. These are valid points but what one fails to understand is why the state governments, under whose jurisdiction law and order and policing fall, have failed to comply with the deadline and the directives.

To ensure autonomy from unwarranted government and political pressures, the Court directed the states to set up a State Security Commission which would lay down broad policies and guidelines for preventive tasks and the evaluation of the performance of the state police. The DGP would be selected from amongst three members empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission by the state government. Further, all officers starting from the SHO to the DGP are to have a minimum tenure of two years unless there are some criminal or disciplinary proceedings against them. The new Establishment Board will decide the transfers and postings of officers below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. These measures were designed to minimise the influence of the government and limit their role in internal transfers of the police officers.

The Court also instructed the state governments to separate investigation from the law and order policing to ensure fast and proficient investigation and improve relations with the people. An expert investigation may increase the conviction rate in India which, for heinous crimes like murder, is just 6.5 percent now.

The initial judgement of the court left gracious space to the legislature by stressing that its directions were meant only to fill the gap until state governments framed "appropriate legislations" adopting a new Police Act based on the recommendations of previous committees, including the recent Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) report, often referred to as the Soli Sorabjee Committee report.

A Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (NGO) study shows that a meagre 11 per cent of the states are totally compliant, 46 per cent partially compliant and 40 per cent are totally non-compliant. The apex court, on January 11, dismissed the plea of states and Union Territories to modify or review its directions on implementation of police reforms. On the April 10 deadline, most of the states, however, requested for more time or a review of the original directives. This wavering by the Court has opened the doors for states to file review applications. The biggest danger now is that the entire original judgement of September 22, 2006 is up for re-examination.

Finally, the real police reform would require more than tinkering with a few institutions and practices. It will be a long drawn process. The initial judgement of the apex court, nonetheless, brought a ray of hope and we expect that the next hearing on April 30, 2006 will uphold its spirit.

The author is Assistant Professor, School of International Studies, JNU. He can be reached at rajan75jnu@yahoo.co.in