Police Reforms

The architecture of a progressive, modern India could only be built on the foundations of a sound criminal
justice system, of which the police is the central pillar. The police has to be insulated from extraneous
pressures to be able to enforce the Rule of Law, and that without a professional police, the country could
not have a stable democracy or achieve sustained economic progress.
The demand for police reforms is over 100 years old with the first such attempt made by Indian Police
Commission of 1902-03 under British rule. Since then, it has seen five state commissions and six
national-level commissions with all their reports gathering dust.
The petition for police reforms was filed in 1996. It got an initial push from Justice J.S. Verma, but after
that, with the exception of Justice S.P. Bharucha, no other judge took significant interest in the matter.
The case meandered for almost 10 years until it was taken up by Justice Sabharwal..
On September 22, 2006, the apex court passed an order in the case of Prakash Singh vs Union of India
directing all states, Union territories and the Centre to bring in police reforms. In a detailed order, which
gave directions on how this was to be done, SC said its order must be followed until all states and the
Centre pass new Police Acts incorporating the courts guidelines.
In a historic judgment, Justice Sabharwal recorded that having regard to:

the gravity of the problem

the urgent need for preservation and strengthening of rule of law
pendency of even this petition for last over 10 years
the fact that various commissions and committees have made recommendations on similar lines
for introducing reforms in the police set-up in the country
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 legislation.
The courts directions included:

Setting up three institutions:

a) State Security Commissions to insulate the state police from extraneous pressures. SSCs
would function as a watchdog with members from the government, judiciary and the civil society.
The commission was supposed to frame policies which make sure that state government does not
exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police.
b) Police establishment boards to give autonomy to the department in personnel matters
c) Police complaints authorities to ensure better accountability of the force.

The court also laid down a procedure for appointment of the DGP and gave him a fixed tenure of
two years
Mandated a two-year tenure for officers performing operational duties in the field
Gave directions for the separation of investigation from law and order in towns with a population
of 10 lakh or more.

The directions were to be implemented by December 31, 2006.

The new Police Acts were ordered with an aim to bring police forces in tune with the times and make them
people-centric rather than ruler-centric. India still follows the Police Act, 1861, framed by the British,
largely with an aim to crush dissent. The Act was a reaction to the sepoy uprising of 1857. The SC, through
its directions which are to be incorporated in new Police Acts, attempted to change this.
The judgment caused a huge flutter. The states never expected such far-reaching directions. They
mobilized the best lawyers to stall the reforms. Eight states, including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab,
Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh filed review petitions.
However, all these petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 23, 2007. The court divided
the directions into two parts: the self-executory directions, which related to the appointment of DGP, the
prescribed minimum tenure for field officers and the setting up of police establishment boards, and said
these had to be implemented forthwith; and, in view of the submissions made by the states, extended the
time limit for the remaining directions till March 31, 2007.
Evaluation
When the order came, the states quickly latched on to that part of it which said the order must be followed
until new acts are passed. Thus states quickly passed new acts in order to not follow SC directions on
police reforms.
Since the 2006 SC order, 17 states have passed new Acts while 12 have issued executive orders. Almost
none follow the SC order either in letter or in spirit. In fact, concerted efforts have been made by all to
somehow circumvent the SC directions and retain political control over the police.
After SC directions, Bihar was the first state to pass a new Police Act in 2007. But the Act diluted SC
directions considerably. The SSC has only government members. DGPs tenure for two years could be
removed on administrative grounds or any other reason. The PEB will only transfer low-ranking
officers and have no powers to dispose of appeals on illegal orders by the government.
On May 17, 2008, the SC constituted a monitoring committee headed by Justice KT Thomas to oversee
the implementation of its directions. The Committee, in its report submitted in August 2010, deplored
that practically no state has fully complied with those directives so far, in letter and spirit. It also
expressed its dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of police being
exhibited by the States.
In 2015, a perusal of the acts passed by the 17 states shows that not much has changed. The composition
of State Security Commission is not independent of political influence of the ruling government in almost
all states.
Most states have avoided having the opposition leader in the commission and independent members have
been kept away.
Barring Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala, no state has agreed to give powers of transfer to the Police
Establishment Board.
Most states have refused to give more than a one-year fixed tenure to DGP irrespective of superannuation
with the exception of Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka and Rajasthan. Reasons for DGPs removal tenure have
been kept vague with grounds ranging from public interest, incapacitation and administrative
exigencies to any other reason.
Usually transfers and postings bring in maximum political influence. Also, only an independent DGP can
ensure an independent police force. Police forces of Delhi, UP, Maharashtra and Gujarat have, in the past,

faced accusations of being spectators during communal riots. Be it 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Babri
demolition, the 1992 Mumbai riots or the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The analysis also reveals that, except Kerala and Karnataka, no state has provided for complete separation
of law and order and investigation duties. The new law, in most other states, says a special crime unit will
be set up for serious crimes. Such arrangement already exists in the form of CIDs and crime branches and
thus does not serve the objective of the SC directives, sources say.
According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there were over 12 lakh pending investigation cases
with the police across the country. SCs attempt at separating investigation units from law and order
duties was precisely to address this issue.
Among the 17 states, only Assam and Tripura have set up police complaints authorities to hold the
uniformed men accountable.
The Centre, too, has been dragging its feet on the issue. It has as not yet set up the National Security
Commission.
A Model Police Act, drafted by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee in 2006, is still seeking suggestions
from public.
Model Police Act
The Model Police Act of 2006 was drafted by the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) constituted by
the MoHA in September 2005. It was chaired by Soli Sorabjee.
The Model Act intended to replace the archaic Indian Police Act of 1861 and it was drafted with the
purpose of not only meeting the challenges of policing but also fulfilling the democratic aspirations of a
modern society.
The PADC envisioned a modern police force which was responsive to the needs of the people while being
accountable to the rule of law. A few of the key concepts underlying the police Act were: 1) functional
autonomy; 2) encouraging professionalism; 3) accountability; and, presciently, 4) jurisdiction.

Functional autonomy was viewed as a means of removing the nexus between police and
politicians who treat the police as their personal security service. It proposed the establishment of
a panel to receive complaints from police officers of pressure from higher officials to commit
illegal or unconstitutional acts. The PADC felt that the law should be the master of the police, not
politicians. A fixed tenure of two years was suggested to avoid transfers arbitrarily.
The Model Act focussed on encouraging professionalism. The PADC recommended abolition of
the rank of constable and replacing it with a primary rank of Grade II civil police officer.
However, a recruit can attain this officer rank only after undergoing a three-year training course
as a stipendiary cadet, culminating in a bachelors degree in police studies. As a result, even the
lowest level of the police force will have a bachelors degree.
The principle of accountability: The police Act proposed introducing criminal penalties for the
most common defaults of the police such as non-registration of FIRs, unlawful arrest, detention,
search or seizure.
Issue of jurisdiction: Underpinning the Model Police Act is the notion that police officers should
be duty-bound to assist victims of sexual offences irrespective of the crimes jurisdiction.

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013

As the Model Police Act was never implemented, it took the tragic Delhi case for reforms regarding
jurisdiction to be announced. In short, while the passage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 is a
milestone in criminal law reform in rape cases, the creation of offences is not sufficient. Instead, the
punishment of those committing these offences through the police and the criminal justice system is
critical in providing effective deterrence against future crimes.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 took the historic step of amending the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
to provide for the new offences of rape causing death or a vegetative state, sexual intercourse by a person
in authority, gang rape and repeat offences. Importantly, the Act also introduced several other new
offences such as causing grievous hurt through acid attacks, sexual harassment, use of criminal force on a
woman with intent to disrobe, voyeurism and stalking. Importantly, the Act further amended the IPC to
criminalize the failure of a public servant to obey directions under law. It has also made the nontreatment of a rape victim by any public or private hospital an offence. While these amendments to the
IPC constitute a major legislative stride forward, corresponding steps forward have not been taken in the
amendment of criminal procedure.
The Act amended the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to provide for a woman officer to record
evidence from a woman against whom certain offences have been committed. If the victim of such
offences has been mentally or physically disabled, temporarily or permanently, then the woman officer
must record the evidence at the victims residence or the victims place of choice. These requirements
apply to offences such as causing voluntarily, grievous hurt by the use of acid, sexual harassment, assault
or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to disrobe, voyeurism, stalking, rape, gang rape,
sexual intercourse by a person in authority, and a word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman. The CrPC was further amended to provide for a court to ensure that when the evidence of a victim
of rape below 18 years has to be recorded, the accused does not confront the victim. However, many
procedural issues critical to making the criminal justice system functional in the case of rape and serving
as a deterrent against further crime have not been addressed by the Act.
Areas to be looked into

Registration of the FIR itself: The courts are divided over whether the police have an obligation or
not by law to investigate allegations of rape before registering an FIR. If a police investigation has
to take place before the registration of an FIR, delays will inevitably occur and the failure to
register FIRs in rape cases will continue. Moreover, the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network
and Systems (CCTNS), an ambitious Rs.2,000 crore project of the Home Ministry, which would
enable at least the e-filing of FIRs, is expected to be implemented only in 2015.
Fast track courts: Section 309 of the CrPC, as amended by the Act, provides that the trial of
offences under Section 376 (rape) and Sections 376A-D must be completed within two months
from the date of filing the charge sheet. However, the Delhi rape case, prosecuted in a fast track
court, has already taken over eight months. Therefore, procedural rules must be examined
including the grounds for an order of in camera proceedings. They are usually ordered only where
a matter of national security is involved or a party asserts that communications are privileged. In
camera proceedings are not ordered on the grounds that the accuseds safety is at risk as in the
Delhi case. Indeed, the courts order of in camera proceedings in this case has resulted in it being
secluded from media attention, thereby reducing public pressure for further reforms.
Protection of good Samaritans: The CrPC must be amended to provide that members of the public
who act as good Samaritans should not be treated as wrongdoers and unnecessarily questioned or

harassed by the police. The current situation in which bystanders do not help victims of crime
reflects a sad state of societal affairs and must be addressed.
While the Act has made limited changes to criminal procedure, the police have been left out of
legislative reforms altogether. The only reforms were those announced by the then Delhi Police
Commissioner, Neeraj Kumar, on January 18, 2013, including that Zero First Information
Reports (FIR) may be registered on the basis of a womans statement at any police station
irrespective of jurisdiction. The police chief also announced a series of other measures such as the
recruitment of 418 women sub-inspectors and 2,088 women constables, PCR vans to be deployed
outside womens colleges, provision for women to call 100 to seek assistance to be given a lift
home at night by a PCR van, and 24-hour police cover for areas around entertainment hubs with
increased security between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m.

Despite these reforms, in the succeeding months, police actions in subsequent rape cases have caused
much alarm. In the case of the rape of a five-year-old child, the police were accused of offering a bribe of
Rs. 2,000 to the victims family to refrain from filing a case. Police officers have also been filmed on video
beating women of all ages because they had the audacity to protest a rape.