"Police reform is a State subject but a national necessity." Critically analyse the implementation of the *Prakash Singh* directions.

In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court issued seven directions to shield the police from political interference and make it answerable to citizens [1]. Police is a State subject under Entry 2 of List II. Two decades on, compliance is uneven, so a national problem still sits in State hands.

Why a State subject is a national necessity

• Fundamental rights: Custodial abuse violates Arts. 21–22 in every State. In November 2026 the Allahabad HC called the state of civil liberty in U.P. "shameful" while hearing a case of an alleged two-day unrecorded detention [2].
• Scale of abuse: U.P. recorded 448 judicial-custody deaths in 2021-22, the highest in India [3].
• Internal security: Organised crime, cyber crime and terrorism cross State borders. Weak State police forces push the burden onto central forces.

Implementation: positives

• State laws: Several States passed new Police Acts. Tamil Nadu's 2013 Act was framed to implement Prakash Singh and set up a District PCA for every district [4].
• Centre's lead: An MHA order set up Police Complaints Authorities in the Union Territories. Their directions are "ordinarily binding" [5].
• Judicial monitoring: The SC continues to oversee compliance, which keeps the reform agenda alive.

Implementation: shortcomings

• Compliance in letter, not spirit: Many State Acts keep executive control over State Security Commissions and DGP selection, which departs from the Court's design [1].
• Diluted watchdogs: Haryana's 2022 Bill sought to remove its PCAs' suo motu powers and narrow the meaning of "serious misconduct" [6]. Tamil Nadu's DPCA is chaired by the Collector, with the SP as a member, so it is not independent [4].
• Capacity deficit: A parliamentary committee found State police forces about 21% short of sanctioned strength [7]. This stalls the separation of investigation from law-and-order duties.
• Accountability gap: PCAs that act only on a complaint cannot reach detentions that are never recorded, as the Bijnor case shows [2].

Overall, Prakash Singh has produced formal compliance but not real change. Federal autonomy has often been used to dilute reform rather than adapt it to local needs. The Centre should tie modernisation grants to compliance with Prakash Singh. States should set up independent PCAs by statute, with binding directions and suo motu powers. Vacancies need to be filled. Policing that respects rights is central to the rule of law and to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), and that makes reform a shared constitutional duty of the Centre and the States.