Policing is primarily a state subject under the Constitution. Discuss the challenges in enforcing a Supreme Court-mandated uniform protocol on police conduct across states.

Q. Policing is primarily a state subject under the Constitution. Discuss the challenges in enforcing a Supreme Court-mandated uniform protocol on police conduct across states. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Public order and police are Entries 1 and 2 of the State List, Seventh Schedule, making police organisation, training and field conduct a state responsibility [1]. The Supreme Court's move (July 2026) to frame an all-India protocol on police handling of demonstrations [3] is therefore constitutionally sound but institutionally difficult to enforce.

Federal design limits operational reach - A judicial protocol binds all states, but its execution — standing orders, drill manuals, crowd-control equipment, deployment norms — rests with individual state governments [1]. - The Union Home Ministry's role is largely advisory and financial (modernisation assistance, model police legislation), not directive [5]. - States retain discretion over prohibitory orders and dispersal decisions, the very points where excesses occur.

Poor record of earlier judicial directives - The Prakash Singh (2006) directions — security of tenure, Police Establishment Boards, Police Complaints Authorities — remain unevenly implemented; the Court is still monitoring compliance in WP(C) 310/1996 nearly two decades later [2]. - Several states enacted their own Police Acts that diluted the mandated safeguards, showing how uniform norms fragment on entering state statute books.

Capacity and training deficits - State forces carried roughly 24% vacancies, leaving crowd situations to overstretched personnel [1]. - About 86% of state police is constabulary, with limited career progression and little specialised training in non-lethal crowd management [1] — a protocol cannot be followed by forces not trained for it.

Weak accountability machinery - Protest policing is discretionary and evidence-poor; without mandatory videography and independent inquiry into complaints of excess, a protocol lacks teeth. - Amit Sahni (2020) required balancing protest with public convenience, yet left enforcement largely to police discretion [4].

The difficulty, then, is institutional rather than constitutional. A protocol co-designed with states through the Inter-State Council, supported by BPRD-standardised crowd-control training, periodic compliance affidavits and independent scrutiny of excess complaints, can make uniformity workable — securing Article 19 freedoms without disturbing the federal scheme.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. PRS Legislative Research — Police Reforms in India — police as a State subject; ~24% vacancies in state forces; 86% constabulary share 2. Supreme Court order dated 17 Oct 2022 in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, WP(C) 310/1996 — continuing judicial monitoring of state compliance with the 2006 police-reform directions 3. The Hindu, "SC considers guidelines for police during mass protests," 28 July 2026 — CJI Surya Kant Bench indicating an all-India protocol on police conduct during demonstrations 4. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) — Supreme Court of India — balancing the right to protest with public movement, regulation left to police authorities 5. Ministry of Home Affairs — Police Reforms — Union's advisory and modernisation-support role; BPRD training standardisation