Police reforms: Prakash Singh and after

Detail

Why police need their own reform track

• Colonial law still in force. Policing is still shaped by the Police Act 1861. The British passed it after the 1857 revolt. Its aim was to keep the people under control, not to serve them.
• Police is a State subject. "Public Order" and "Police" are Entries 1 and 2 of List II (State List), Seventh Schedule [3]. Only the states can carry out most reforms. The Centre can only advise and persuade them [3].
• Politicisation (political control used for party or personal gain).
• The law gives ministers the power of "superintendence and control" over the police. Superintendence means general supervision.
• The 2nd ARC (2005-09) found that this power has been misused for personal and political purposes [4].

• As a result, officers are transferred as a reward or a punishment.

• Custodial abuse. This means torture or death of a person while in police custody. It is common, and it damages people's trust in the justice system (see justice-delivery-tribunals).

• IPS leadership under state control. The IPS is an All India Service (Art. 312). The Centre recruits its officers, but they serve in state cadres. Their postings and transfers are decided by the state government.
• Too few police, too many gaps (2016 data) [4]:
• India had a sanctioned strength of 181 police per lakh people. Actual strength was only 137. The UN norm is 222.
• About 24% of posts in state police were vacant (around 5.5 lakh posts, January 2016).

• Constables make up 86% of state police forces. Most get only one promotion in their whole career.

• Earlier reports were largely ignored:

Body	Year	Main point
National Police Commission (chair: Dharma Vira)	1977-81	Eight reports. It proposed a new Police Act, a State Security Commission and fixed tenures for officers
Ribeiro Committee	1998	Reviewed how far the NPC's ideas had been carried out. Proposed security commissions and complaint bodies
Padmanabhaiah Committee	2000	Police recruitment, training and freedom from political interference
Malimath Committee	2003	Reform of the criminal justice system, including the police's role in investigation

Prakash Singh v. Union of India (22 September 2006)

• The case. Prakash Singh, a former DGP, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996 in 1996 [5]. A PIL (public interest litigation) is a case filed for the public good, not for the person's own benefit.
• Deadlines. The SC told the Union and the states to set up the new bodies by 31 December 2006. They had to file affidavits of compliance (sworn statements that they had obeyed) by 3 January 2007 [2].
• The seven directives. The Court said these would apply until the states passed new laws:

#	Directive	What it does
1	State Security Commission (SSC)	Lays down broad policy for the police and judges how well they perform. It protects the police from illegitimate political pressure. Members: the Home Minister (chair), the Leader of Opposition and independent members. States could choose a model proposed by the NHRC, the Ribeiro Committee or the Sorabjee Committee [2]
2	DGP selection and tenure	The DGP (Director General of Police, the head of a state's police) is chosen from the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC. "Empanelled" means placed on an approved shortlist. The DGP gets a minimum two-year tenure, whatever the retirement date [2]
3	Fixed tenure in the field	A two-year minimum tenure for officers on operational duty: IGs, DIGs, SPs and SHOs (the SHO is the officer in charge of a police station) [2]
4	Separate investigation from law and order	Officers who investigate crimes are kept apart from officers who maintain law and order. This starts in towns or urban areas with 10 lakh or more people and later extends to smaller towns [2]
5	Police Establishment Board (PEB)	A board of senior police officers. It decides transfers, postings, promotions and other service matters for officers below the rank of DSP. For higher ranks, it only recommends to the government [2]
6	Police Complaints Authority (PCA)	Hears public complaints of serious police misconduct, such as death or rape in custody. The state-level PCA deals with officers of SP rank and above. The district-level PCA deals with DSP and below [2]
7	National Security Commission (NSC)	Set up at the Union level. It prepares a panel for choosing the chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPOs) and reviews how well these forces work

• Note the trap: The PEB decides matters for officers up to DSP. The PCA splits its work at SP-and-above and DSP-and-below.

Aftermath (1): the Model Police Act 2006

• The committee. In September 2005, the MHA set up the Police Act Drafting Committee, chaired by Soli Sorabjee [2][3].
• The draft. The committee handed in the draft Model Police Act on 30 October 2006. On 31 October 2006, the Home Secretary sent it to the states with a D.O. (demi-official) letter. They could use it as a template [2][3].
• What it is. It is a model law. It does not bind any state. Its aim is to replace the 1861 Act.
• What states actually did. Many states passed their own Police Acts. These Acts often diluted (weakened) the SC's directives. For example, SSCs were filled with officials, and their advice was made non-binding.
• According to MHA replies, 17 states have either passed new laws or changed their old ones [3][6]:
  • 15 states passed new Police Acts: Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttarakhand.
  • 2 states amended their existing Acts: Gujarat and Karnataka.
• Example: the Tamil Nadu Police (Reform) Act, 2013 [7].

Aftermath (2): monitoring and the 2018 order

• Justice K.T. Thomas Committee (2008-10). The SC set up this committee to monitor whether states were obeying the 2006 directives. It found widespread non-compliance. It said states showed "total indifference" to the directives.
• 3 July 2018 order. The MHA had asked the Court to modify the 2006 judgment. In reply, the SC said [5]:
• States must not appoint "acting" DGPs. An acting DGP is a stop-gap chief who is not chosen through the UPSC panel.

• States must send names to the UPSC at least three months before the serving DGP retires.

• Ongoing disputes. States keep breaking these rules. They appoint stop-gap chiefs, extend favoured officers' service, or argue with the UPSC over the panel. Contempt petitions keep coming back to the Court. A contempt petition asks the Court to punish someone for disobeying its orders. The 1996 writ petition is still being heard: there are orders in it as late as 17 October 2022 [5].

Assessment: why states resist

• Loss of transfer patronage. "Patronage" here means the power to reward or punish officers through postings. The PEB and fixed tenures take this power away from politicians.
• Diluted bodies.
• In many states, the SSC has a ruling-party majority, or its advice is not binding.

• PCAs are often weak. They lack staff and cannot issue binding orders. Many are chaired by serving or retired police and government officials, so the police end up judging themselves.

• Federal argument. States say police is a List II subject, so the Court should not frame the rules. Critics call this judicial overreach: the Court doing the legislature's job.

• Basic gaps remain. The colonial 1861 Act is still in force in many states. The large shortfall in police numbers (2016) also weakens any reform [4].

Prelims Hooks

• "Police" and "Public Order" are Entries 2 and 1 of List II, Seventh Schedule. They are not in the Concurrent List [3].
• Prakash Singh v. UoI was decided on 22 September 2006. It arose from WP (C) 310 of 1996 and gave seven directives [2][5].
• DGP: chosen from the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC. Minimum tenure is two years, irrespective of retirement date.
• PEB decides transfers and postings for officers below DSP rank. PCA: state level for SP and above, district level for DSP and below.
• Investigation is separated from law and order first in towns with 10 lakh+ people.
• Model Police Act 2006: drafted by the Soli Sorabjee committee (set up September 2005) and submitted on 30 October 2006. It is a model and does not bind the states [3].
• National Police Commission (1977-81), chaired by Dharma Vira, gave eight reports. Trap: it is not the Malimath Committee (2003, criminal justice reform).
• The 3 July 2018 SC order banned acting DGPs and requires names to reach the UPSC three months before the vacancy [5].
• The National Security Commission covers central police organisations, not state police.

Mains Points

• Court-led reform vs federalism. The SC filled a gap left by inaction from the legislature and the executive. But police is a List II subject, so it has little power to enforce its directives. This shows the limits of judicial governance. Better answer: a model law, plus central funds linked to reform. Make release of police modernisation grants depend on PEB and PCA compliance.
• Political control vs political interference. Elected governments must hold the police accountable. Transfer patronage, however, harms professional policing. The way forward:
• A binding SSC with independent members.
• Fixed tenures for officers.

• Limiting "superintendence" by law to policy and oversight only, as the 2nd ARC suggested [4].

• Accountability gap. PCAs headed by serving officials cannot win public trust. Suggested fixes: retired judges as heads, civil society members, binding orders and their own investigating staff. Link this to the problem of custodial violence.

• Diluted state Acts. The 17 state laws [3] often turned the SC's model into its opposite. A national new Police Act framework is needed to replace the 1861 Act. Reform also needs filling vacancies (137 actual vs 222 UN norm per lakh people, 2016) [4].