Police Reforms in India:

Background and the

Road Ahead
by
Prakash Singh
Padmashri

Chairman, Indian Police Foundation

(formerly) Director General BSF, DGP Assam and DGP UP
 Why Police Reforms?
 Colonial Structure
 Act of 1861
 Changes not carried out after
Independence
 Emergency exposed the brutal character
of Police
 Reforms necessary for a progressive,
modern India
 Police Commission (1902-03)
“The police force is far from efficient; it is defective in
training and organisation; it is inadequately supervised; it is
generally regarded as corrupt and oppressive; and it has
utterly failed to secure the confidence and cordial
cooperation of the people...

The police force throughout the country is in a most

unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common
everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and
discredit to the Government, and that radical reforms are
urgently necessary.”
State Police Commissions
 Kerala (1959)
 West Bengal (1960-61)
 Bihar (1961)
 Punjab (1961)
 Maharashtra (1964)
 Madhya Pradesh (1966)
 Delhi (1966)
 Uttar Pradesh (1970-71)
 Assam (1971)
 Tamil Nadu (1971)
 Andhra Pradesh (1984)
 National Police Commission
(1977-81)
“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”

 Chairman: Shri Dharma Vira

 Report in eight volumes
 Magnum Opus for Police
 Police Commissions/Committees
 National Police Commission (1977-81)
 Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)
 Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)
 Group of Ministers on National Security (2000-01)
 Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms
(2002-03)
 Soli Sorabjee Committee on Model Police Act (2006)
 Prof Madhava Menon Committee on Draft National Policy on
Criminal Justice (2007)
 Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2006-08)
 Supreme Court Directions
(Sept.22, 2006)

Objective
 Insulating police from political pressures
 Internal autonomy to police in personnel
matters
 Ensuring accountability
 Objective selection of DGP
 Security of tenure to field officers
 Separating investigative from law and order
functions
 State Security Commission
Any model recommended by the following could
be chosen:

1. National Human Rights Commission

2. Ribeiro Committee
3. Sorabjee Committee
 State Security Commission
NHRC Model
1. CM/HM as Chairman
2. Leader of Opposition
3. Lok Ayukta or a retired Judge of High Court to be
nominated by CJ or Member, State Human Rights
Commission.
4. A sitting or retired Judge nominated by Chief
Justice of High Court.
5. Chief Secretary
6. DGP as ex-officio Secretary
 State Security Commission
Ribeiro Committee Model
1. Minister i/c Police as Chairman
2. Leader of Opposition
3. Judge, sitting or retired, nominated by Chief
Justice
4. Chief Secretary
5. Three non-political citizens of proven merit and
integrity
6. DG Police as Secretary
 State Security Commission
Sorabjee Committee Model
1. Home Minister as Chairperson
2. Leader of Opposition
3. High Court Judge (retd.)
4. Chief Secretary
5. Home Secretary
6. Five “non-political persons”
7. DGP as ex-officio Secretary
 Functions of State Security
Commission
 Laying down broad policies
 Giving directions for the performance of
preventive tasks and service-oriented
functions of police.
 Evaluating performance of the State Police
and preparing a report thereon to be placed
before State Legislature.
 Police Establishment Board
Members: DGP and four other senior officers of Department

 Decide transfers, postings and other service

related matters of all officers of and below the rank
of Dy.SP.
 Make recommendations to State Government
regarding postings and transfers of officers of and
above the rank of SP.
 Forum of Appeal for disposing of representations
from officers of the rank of SP and above
regarding their promotion, transfer, disciplinary
proceedings or their being subjected to illegal or
irregular orders.
 Accountability
State-level Complaints Authority
 Members: Headed by retired Judge of High
Court/Supreme Court chosen out of a panel of
names proposed by Chief Justice.
 Assisted by three to five members selected from a
panel prepared by the State HRC/Lok
Ayukta/PSC
 Powers: Inquire into complaints of serious
misconduct (incidents involving death, grievous
hurt or rape in police custody) against any officer
of the rank of SP and above.
 Accountability

District Complaints Authority

 Members: Headed by retired District Judge
chosen out of panel of names proposed by CJ
or a Judge of the High Court nominated by
him.
 Assisted by three to five members selected
from a panel prepared by the State HRC/Lok
Ayukta/PSC
 Powers: Look into complaints against police
officers of and upto the rank of Dy.SP.
 Selection of DGP
From amongst three senior-most officers who have
been empanelled for promotion to that rank by
UPSC on the basis of:
 Length of Service
 Very Good record
 Range of experience
Minimum Tenure – Two years irrespective of date
of superannuation.
 Security of Tenure

Minimum tenure of two years for all field

officers including:

 DGP of the State

 IG Zone
 DIG Range
 SP i/c District
 SHO
 Security of Tenure

Officers may, however, be removed

prematurely as a result of:

 Disciplinary Proceedings
 Conviction in a criminal case or case of
corruption
 Found incapacitated from discharging his
responsibilities
 Separation of Investigation
from Law & Order
To be implemented in towns/urban areas
which have a population of one million or
more to start with.

Objective:
 Speedier Investigation

 Better Expertise

 Improved rapport with people

National Security Commission

Members:
 Union Home Minister

 Heads of CPOs

 Security Experts

 Union Home Secretary as ex-officio

Secretary
 National Security Commission
Objectives:
 Make recommendation to appropriate authority
for selection and placement of Chiefs of CPOs,
who would also have a minimum tenure of two
years.
 Take measures to upgrade the effectiveness of
CPOs
 Improve service conditions of its personnel
 Ensure coordination between the forces and
their proper utilization
 States’ Response

 Partial Compliance

 Acts/Executive Orders
States which have enacted Laws
Assam Bihar
Chhattisgarh Gujarat
Haryana Himachal Pradesh
Karnataka Kerala
Maharashtra Meghalaya
Mizoram Punjab
Rajasthan Sikkim
Tamil Nadu Tripura
Uttarakhand
 GOI' Response

Has reservations on NSC's

 Nomenclature

 Composition

 Functions

Also on tenure of heads of CPOs

 Thomas Committee
1. Constituted vide Supreme Court’s Order
dated May 16, 2008
2. Headed by Justice K.T. Thomas.
Members included Kamal Kumar, IPS
(Retd.) and Dharmendra Sharma, IAS
3. Report submitted in August 2010
 Thomas Committee
Findings

1. No State has fully complied with the

Directives in letter and spirit.
2. Total indifference to the issue of reforms
exhibited by states.
3. Ground realities verified in only four
states – Karnataka, Maharashtra, UP and
WB.
 Justice Verma Committee (2012)
“We believe that if the Supreme Court’s
directions in Prakash Singh are
implemented, there will be a crucial
modernization of the police to be service
oriented for the citizenry in a manner which
is efficient, scientific, and consistent with
human dignity.”
 Latest Position
 States which have passed executive
orders have diluted the directions of the
Supreme Court.
 States (17) which have passed laws have
violated the letter and spirit of Court’s
directions.
 Government of India has been tardy in
implementing the Court’s directions.
 Follow-up Action
 Mobilise
 Public Opinion
 Media

 NGOs
 Neutralise political opposition
 Internal Police Reforms
 Seek judicial intervention at State level
 Pursue implementation in Supreme Court
Implementation of Supreme Court Directions

Will have the effect of

 Upholding the Rule of Law

 Insulating police from extraneous

pressures
 Protecting human rights

 Improving Governance
Other Matters Relevant to Police Reforms
1. Manpower
2. Infrastructure
3. Housing
4. Working Hours
5. Training
6. Reducing Police Workload
7. Modernisation
8. Registration of Cases
9. Commissionerate System
10. Police in Concurrent List
 Relevance/Urgency of Police Reforms

1. Survival of Democracy
2. Sustaining momentum of Economic
Progress
3. Combatting Terrorism/
Insurgency/Organised Crimes
4. Transform Rulers’ Police to People’s
Police