Home - Police Reforms

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.

State-wise analysis of compliance, as tabulated by the Thomas Committee, is separately attached.