Retired IPS officer Prakash Singh says although Supreme Court ruled in favour of reforms in 2006, there has hardly been any headway in this regard.
File photo of police at the Delhi-Noida border. Photo: Special arrangement
IPS (Indian Police Service) officer Prakash Singh has served as DGP (director general of police) of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, and also commanded India’s Border Security Force (BSF). He is one of the key architects and advocates for police reforms in India.
IPS officer Prakash Singh. Photo: Twitter.
Responding to a PIL (public interest litigation) filed in 1996 by Singh, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on September 22, 2006, giving specific directions to the Union and state governments to carry out structural reforms with regard to the police force. The idea behind the judgment is to insulate the police force from external pressures and increase its accountability before people.
In an interview with Mohd Naushad Khan, the former DGP described his efforts in pursuit of police reforms and what the response has been like from the government and judiciary.
Even after 15 years (after Supreme Court judgment on September 22, 2006), not a single state and union territory has fully complied with the directives of the court in the Prakash Singh judgment. What do you think has resulted in the lack of progress?
Indeed, no state has fully complied with the Supreme Court’s directions. But it is also true that they have made halting, hesitant and half-hearted attempts towards compliance. Therefore, there is some movement forward, though not enough and not adequate. We see partial compliance in some states. Therefore, it cannot be described as zero compliance.
In fact, states have been on the defensive to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take adverse note of their performance in this regard. And, at least on the paper, they think they should appear to be complying with the instructions of the apex court.
The states have done certain things, but at the same time, if you dig deeper, you will find that much of the compliance has been superficial. It is a bit farcical, in the sense, wherever possible they have diluted, modified the directions, and in some cases, the states have attempted to scuttle or sabotage them. For example:
1. The Union government mandated that every state should have a State Security Commission (SSC) with the objective of insulating the police force from external pressure. Such commissions are supposed to be constituted in the way that they are evenly balanced with representatives from the government and civil society. That is the objective of the Supreme Court.
Now, what we find is that in most of the states either there is a preponderance of the government representatives, or if they are equal in number, we find that persons chosen from the civil society are known supporters of the government. This defeats the very objective of constituting the SSC.
The Supreme Court has already made it clear that SSCs should not be dominated by the government. But if the representatives chosen from the civil society are known supporters of the government, then they would not express their independent views as the members of SSCs. In a way, the composition of SSCs is being influenced.
The Union government has said that whatever SSCs say should be binding on the respective governments. However, states have said that the directives from SSCs should not be binding, but recommendatory only.
Once you have it recommendatory, then it is as good as not having an SSC. If it is just recommendatory, then the option is with the state to accept or reject depending on whether such instructions are politically convenient or not. The purpose of an SSC is to act as a watchdog to ensure that the government does not interfere in the day-to-day functions of the police. And also, the police do not transgress the limits of the law.
It is supposed to be a body between the government and the police to keep both within their proper limits. But once you have diluted the composition of an SSC and once you have curtailed its power, then the purpose of having such commissions is defeated.
2. The DGP is to suppose have a tenure of two years irrespective of superannuation on selection. What some states have started doing is that they have been appointing officers as DGPs who have a few months before their retirement. There have been instances where officers who have just one month, or in some cases one week, left have been made DGPs. Making such officers DGPs means denying other officers who have the chance to get promoted.
In fact, this was brought to the notice of the then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi who made it clear that police officers must have a minimum of six months of service left to be considered for empanelment as a DGP. However, this rule concerning the appointment of DGPs is also being flouted.
3. Now, let’s look at complaints authority. As per law, SSCs must be headed by a district session judge at the district level, and at the state level by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a high court. Now, what some states have done is that they have made district magistrates as the heads of SSCs at the state level.
Once an administrative officer (district magistrate or commissioner) becomes the head of an SSC, then the commission discharging its function objectively is to an extent reduced. Uttar Pradesh has said it does not need a Security Commission. The state government there says that it already has enough watchdogs to look into complaints, and it doesn’t need an SSC. In Odisha, the government has made Lokayukta the chairman of the SSC. There are all kinds of diversions. In effect, the Supreme Court’s order has not been followed either in the letter or in spirit.
What do you think are the challenges in implementing these directives?
The challenges are at four levels:
Firstly, the political class is not inclined to implement the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms for the simple reason that it thinks by doing so its regulatory power over police gets diminished. No government, including those who are in opposition today, talks of police reforms. The opposition, despite being at the receiving end, does not support police reforms fully.
The second challenge is from our bureaucracy. India’s bureaucracy has become accustomed to dictate terms to the police. I am not questioning the superiority of the civil administration. However, one should understand that while the civil administration has full authority to lay down guidelines, define objectives and policies, the operational part about achieving those objectives and implementation of those policies should be left to the police.
I call it operational autonomy. The police do not mind any policy being given to them, but what the police find difficult is the day-to-day interference in their functioning. There is an absence of operational autonomy.
Delhi police at Delhi-Meerut Expressway amidst farmer protests,
in New Delhi on December 7, 2020. Photo: PTI.
Could you elaborate on this term ‘operational autonomy’ for the police?
Look, one may say to the police force to maintain good law and order and there should be no communal riots. However, saying that X and Y should/should not be mentioned in an FIR [first information report], charges cannot be framed against X and Y, and the evidence should not be collected against certain people are not acceptable. The bureaucracy should not have the power to dictate this to the police. This lack of operational autonomy for the police is a huge problem and there is tremendous resistance from the bureaucracy to relinquish this power over the police.
[Editor’s note: The first two challenges have been mentioned in the answer to the previous question.]
The third challenge in implementing the directives of the Supreme Court is that a section of the police officers are themselves not in favour of police reforms. They are in the top bracket and all their lives they have curried favour with those in the highest echelons of power expecting to get top promotions in the police department through this proximity. Such senior police officers are not keen on police reforms.
Fourth, the people, in general, are indifferent to police reforms. However, the level of awareness has increased, and every time there is a crisis in the country, you will find that newspaper editorials invariably discuss police reforms. They say that due to the lack of police reforms, we continue to suffer and have such incidents.
Why do you think states are resisting police reforms, and why some states have implemented some provisions while others are non-compliant?
That depends on the nature of leadership at the state level. I have seen that the larger the state greater is the dadagiri and resistance to police reforms.
You will be surprised that the northeastern states (Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) in particular have shown greater respect for the Supreme Court’s directive in this regard and their level of compliance is much higher than Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra.
The large states think that they need not comply and can get away with it. It all depends on the leadership at the state level and how enlightened it is. In Kerala, when A.K. Antony was the chief minister, he tried to introduce police reforms genuinely. But after he left office, there has been regression again and the state has gone to its earlier position. The enlightenment of the state leadership determines the acceptance and rejection of police reforms.
Is there any mechanism to put pressure on the non-compliant states to adhere to the directives in both letter and spirit?
There are several mechanisms to put pressure on the non-compliant states.
1. The Supreme Court can hold them for contempt by stating that either you comply or you will be charged with contempt of court.
2. The Union government can incentivise states that implement police reforms by offering more grants for police modernisation, among others.
3. People must articulate and demand police reforms aggressively. Once people start raising their voices on this subject, there will be pressure on the non-compliant states. If it becomes an election issue and people say ‘we are not going to vote for you, if you do not support police reforms’ all political parties will be under pressure. Our politicians are not prepared to lose elections. They are ready to do anything to remain in power.
Besides, at the state level, NGOs, enlightened citizens who are convinced about the need for police reforms could move the high courts.
What can Supreme Court do to ensure compliance?
The Supreme Court has not exercised all the powers it has to ensure compliance. It has only issued directions. That is fine. The honourable judges have expressed themselves in favour of police reforms. The Supreme Court has the power to punish states for contempt, but it hasn’t done so far. Why it hasn’t done so far is something that I fail to understand.
As a petitioner, I moved the apex court on a number of occasions with contempt petitions against states which came across as the most defiant. But the court has never issued any notice to non-complying states.
Recently the Chief Justice of India has expressed concern over the role of the police force. Do you believe that the implementation of Prakash Singh’s judgment can address his concern?
It can to a great extent, but not entirely. But let me also tell you that for the last two years, the matter has not been listed by the Supreme Court. In fact, I have been trying for it to be listed. Before the present Chief Justice, mention was made in the Supreme Court that the matter should be listed. We were also given an assurance that it will be listed in the month of October 2021, but so far nothing happened.
The Supreme Court should revive this petition as far as monitoring the implementation of directives is concerned. I am still waiting and hoping that the court will take up the matter seriously.
Finally, what is your expectation from the present Chief Justice of India?
I am optimistic and have great expectations from Chief Justice Ramana because he has been issuing very positive statements. He has been expressing concern and saying those police officers who are loyal to one government must face the music when another government takes over. I expect that if the matter comes up before him, he may take a stronger view. But unless that happens, it only remains a hope.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments