Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

The history of police reforms may be traced from the setting up of the National Police

Commission in 1977, when it was felt that "far reaching changes have taken place in the
country" since independence but "there has been no comprehensive review at the national
level of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social
and economic situation in the country". A fresh examination was considered necessary "of
the role and performance of the police both as a law enforcement agency and as an
institution

to

protect

rights

of

the

citizens

enshrined

in

the

Constitution".

The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979 and 1981 which contained
comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. The
Commission even drafted a model Police Bill which could be enacted. Its recommendations,
however, received no more than a cosmetic treatment at the hands of the Government of
India. The NPC had been constituted by the Janata government following the defeat of Mrs.
Indira Gandhi at the election held in 1977 and the indictment of her regime, particularly the
imposition of Emergency, by the Shah Commission. By the time the Commission submitted
its report, Mrs. Gandhi had returned to power again. Its recommendations were therefore
branded as anti-establishment or anti-Congress and given a quiet burial.

Other Committees
Apart from the National Police Commission, several other bodies were constituted from
time to time to go into the question of police reforms. These were:

Gore Committee on Police Training (1971-73)


Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)
Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)
Group of Ministers on National Security (2000-01)
Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2001-3)

The Gore Committee was constituted to review the state of police training in the
country and suggest improvements. The Ribeiro Committee was set up by the
Supreme Court while it was deliberating over the Public Interest Litigation filed for
police reforms; the Court wanted the Committee to examine if the National Police
Commission's recommendations, which formed the core of the PIL, were still
relevant or that any modifications were called for. The Padmanabhaiah Committee
examined the requirements of policing in the new millennium. The Group of
Ministers examined the reports of various Committees which were set up in the
wake of Pakistan's aggression in Kargil, including the one dealing with internal
security, and suggested comprehensive measures to strengthen the internal
security apparatus. The Malimath Committee made far-reaching recommendations
to reform the criminal justice system. It was of the view that the present
Adversarial System could be improved by adapting some features of the
Inquisitorial System, and recommended that 'Quest for Truth' should be the
guiding principle of the entire criminal justice system. The Committee suggested
significant changes in the Criminal Procedure Code to expedite the disposal of

cases and in the Evidence Act to facilitate securing of convictions. Unfortunately,


the recommendations of the Malimath Committee could not be implemented
because of the chorus of protest from the human rights lobbies.

Supreme Court's Directions


The core recommendations of the National Police Commission were resurrected through a
public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court in 1996. The petition was heard by the
Supreme Court over a period of ten years. The dilemma before the Supreme Court was
whether it should wait further for the governments to take suitable steps for police
reforms. However, as recorded in the judgment, "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 the country; and (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 is prepared by the Central Government and/or the
State

Governments

pass

the

requisite

legislations".

In a landmark judgment on September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the setting up
of three institutions at the state level with a view to insulating the police from extraneous
influences, giving it functional autonomy and ensuring its accountability. These institutions
are:

State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and
give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service
oriented functions of the police;
Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and
four other senior officers of the department which shall decide all transfers,
postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the postings and transfers of officers of the
rank of Superintendent of Police and above to the State Government; and
Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to
inquiring into allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the Apex Court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be
selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of
the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the
Union Public Service Commission, and that he shall have a prescribed minimum
tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the
Inspector General of Police of a Zone, Deputy Inspector General of a Range,
Superintendent of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officer in-charge
of a police station would also have a minimum tenure of two years.

The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and
order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved
rapport with the people.
The Union Government was also asked to set up a National Security Commission
for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations,
upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions
of its personnel.
The judicial directions were to be implemented by December 31, 2006.
Subsequently, the time limit was extended till March 31, 2007. There has been
considerable resistance to implementing the directions. The political leadership
and the bureaucrats are not prepared to loosen their stranglehold over the police.
Eight states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh filed review petitions.
However, all these petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 23,
2007. The majority of states nevertheless continued to drag their feet in
implementation whereupon the petitioner filed contempt petitions against six
states which were particularly non-compliant. These states were Gujarat, Jammu
& Kashmir, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh. The Court was
however not inclined to issue any contempt notices to the states. On May 17, 2008
the Supreme Court constituted a Monitoring Committee headed by Justice KT
Thomas to oversee the implementation of its directions in the States and Union
Territories. The Committee expressed its "dismay over the total indifference to the
issue of reforms in the functioning of police being exhibited by the States".

Status of Compliance
Some states have committed to complying with the directions of the Supreme Court. These
include the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Sikkim, Tripura, Uttrakhand and Goa. It must be clarified however that the directions are
yet to be implemented on the ground. Some other states like Andhra Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal have partially
complied with the directions. Twelve states (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttrakhand) have
drafted laws with a view to circumventing the implementation of Supreme Court's
directions. The Bihar Police Bill is particularly perverse. Uttar Pradesh and Tamilnadu are
among the most non-compliant states.

Potrebbero piacerti anche