Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!
SHARE:
Police reforms in India - Prakash Singh judgement
Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment
- The story: Political interference in police postings in India continues unabated despite the landmark "Prakash Singh judgment" nearly a decade-and-a-half ago. The latest episode of allegations of lobbying by several IPS officers in Maharashtra has brought the issue to the fore.
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India case: Mr. Prakash Singh served as DGP of UP Police and Assam Police, besides other postings. He filed a PIL in the Supreme Court post retirement, in 1996, seeking police reforms. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in September 2006 directed all states and UTs to bring in police reforms. The ruling issued a series of measures that were to be undertaken by the governments. These were in line with ensuring that the police could do their work without worrying about any political interference.
- Measures suggested in the Prakash Singh judgment: The main directive in the verdict was fixing the tenure and selection of the DGP (Director General of Police). This was to avoid situations where officers about to retire in a few months are given the post. In order to ensure no political interference, a minimum tenure was sought for the Inspector General of Police. This was to ensure that they are not transferred mid-term by politicians. The SC further directed postings of officers being done by Police Establishment Boards (PEB). The idea was to insulate powers of postings and transfers from political leaders. The PEBs comprise police officers and senior bureaucrats. Further, there was a recommendation of setting up State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA). This should work as a platform where common people aggrieved by police action could approach. Apart from this, the SC directed separation of investigation and law and order functions to better improve policing. It also suggested setting up of State Security Commissions (SSC) that would have members from civil society and forming a National Security Commission.
- The implementation: Up till 2020, not even one state was fully compliant with the apex court directives. While 18 states passed or amended their Police Acts in this time, not one fully matches legislative models. Five contempt petitions were issued in the past decades to states found to be non-compliant. Bigger states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and UP have been the worst when it comes to bringing about systemic changes in line with the judgement. It is only the North-Eastern states that have followed the suggested changes in spirit.
- Maharashtra case: The government under former CM Devendra Fadnavis passed the Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014. This was meant to incorporate the changes suggested in the Prakash Singh judgment. However, recently too, there were allegations of rampant political interference in transfers. The state Acts were deliberately formulated in such a way that “it just gave legal garb to the status quo that existed before”. In the updated Maharashtra Police Act of 2014 too, a section 22(N)(2) had been added. This gave the CM special powers to transfer officers at any point in case of ‘administrative exigencies’. The SC directive was that an officer should not be transferred before the given tenure. But CMs have used this section for mid-term transfer thereby maintaining control on transfers.
- How is the government interfering despite PEBs: The officers in the Police Establishment Boards (PEB) are ‘unofficially’ informed by the government about which officer would be preferred for which post. Either that or in meetings to decide postings of senior IPS officers, when even the Additional Chief Secretary (home) is present, the officers go with what the ACS Home says. Among the five officers in the PEB, even if one or two do not agree, the majority usually sides with the opinions of the government of the day. Thus, in spite of PEBs in place, the system has continued as before.
- State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA): In January 2017, the SPCA was set up by the Maharashtra government, and it did receive several complaints at their office in Mumbai. But the SPCA was struggling to set up offices in rural areas. While the SPCA could recommend action against any officer found guilty, the decision on taking actions eventually rested with the government. Over the past years, the SPCA has also struggled due to lack of staff members.
- Summary: Systemic changes are essential to protect the democratic structure of the country itself. The unholy nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats, police and criminals should be put an end to. Police administration should be restructured, giving it functional autonomy, and a robust criminal justice system must be built. The need of the hour is an all-India Act that all states have to follow. Small changes can be made in exceptional cases relating to the situation in a particular state.
* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your
own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.
COMMENTS