India - Articles

Debating Police Reforms

The debate over police reforms continues to rage with sleeves being rolled up and swords being brandished for a one-to-one duel on either side of the fence even as some remain undecided as to which side they should join. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not going to compromise on its directions - that the basics whereof must be implemented within the stipulated time frame.

It is no one's case that there should not be any reforms of the police organization at all, crucial as it is to the internal security of the country as well as to the administration of the criminal justice system. This has also been acknowledged by the various police commissions (both national and state ones), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the Justice Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reform. It is therefore in the fitness of things that the ongoing debate on police reforms, as presently pitched, should not only be well informed but should also be sensitive to the various concerns and issues as have been raised by the various parties involved.

The main ingredients of the proposed police reforms, as also recommended by the Supreme Court, include the constitution of a Police Establishment Board to consider issues such as those relating to the transfer and posting of key police officials, a Police Complaints Board at the district and state levels to be headed by a retired or a sitting judge to consider various complaints against the police and a stipulated tenure for the key police officials, again to allow them to function independently, without any fear of transfer and without any political interference. A State Security Commission is also envisaged to be headed by the Chief Minister or the Home Minister of the particular state to not only act as a think tank on issues relating to policing and internal security but also to cushion the police against unwarranted interference.

The fact that the popular perception of the police continues to be very negative only strengthens the need for police reforms. The police, as it functions now, is perceived as unresponsive, obtrusive, callous, corrupt, inefficient and ineffective notwithstanding the multifarious constraints and odds against which our police is pitted namely a rickety infrastructure, shortage of manpower, lack of necessary financial and other resources, lack of adequate training, low compensation and, most importantly, excessive political interference. So, there definitely is more than a case for not only reforming the police organization to cushion it against various ominous and insidious influences of the political power play, but also to make its functioning more transparent, responsive, sensitized, effective and independent, simultaneously equipping it with all the requisite infrastructure, resources and manpower.

However, even while accepting the need for police reforms, there have been clear voices of dissent from those corners which are liable to lose power and control over the police as a result of the proposed reforms. These voices have come from the political and permanent executive. They feel that the reforms, as proposed, need more threadbare discussion and debate instead of plunging headlong into its implementation without minding the implications thereof but the judiciary has dug its heels in terming such suggestions and arguments as dilatory tactics.

Even while believing that many of these fears are baseless, one does feel that the supervisory control of the magistracy over the police should not be weakened any further. Keeping in mind the Actonion (of Lord Acton) dictum of 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,' we should be careful that while guaranteeing absolute independence to police, it should not be allowed to become an empire in itself, that is not amenable to any supervisory control. While there are provisions for a Complaints Board, such a structure has always been found to be too formal in its operation. Ergo, there is definitely a need to revive the supervisory powers of the Executive Magistrate over the police, as also envisaged in the Police Rules but which has gone out of practice. The Executive Magistrate in the field is the officer who is more easily accessible to the people and has a much more people-friendly face than the police. So, such old practices as the thana inspection and performance evaluation by the Magistrate should be revived and further strengthened.

One should, indeed, not rush through something as vital as police reforms and all related aspects ought to be thoroughly discussed before being implemented. The police reforms, as proposed, can be implemented, on a pilot basis, in one or two states (which have already consented to such reforms) while simultaneously continuing with an informed discussion and debate over police reforms. The findings from the 'pilot states' can later be factored to further fine-tune these reforms. But police reforms are definitely something that require more than dilettantism and amateurish attention.

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect those of the Government.