The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the Rule of Law. The supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the Rule of Law becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.
As policing is a state subject under the Constitution, states must enact their own Police Acts but most states have chosen to adopt the 1861 Act. Some states have enacted their own Acts but even these closely resemble the 1861 Act. This Act and the kind of policing culture that has been allowed to flourish in independent India, have led to countless abuses by police officers. The need for police reform has been acknowledged by successive governments. The need for police reforms in India is long recognised. There has been more than three decades of discussion by government created committees and commissions. Way back in 1979 the National Police Commission (NPC) was set up to report on policing and give recommendations for reform. The Commission produced eight reports, dozens of topic specific recommendations and also a Model Police Act.
No recommendation was adopted by any government. This persuaded two former Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 yearlong battle in Court, the Apex Court set up the Ribeiro Committee in 1998 followed by the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and eventually the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC or Soli Sorabjee Committee) that drafted a new model police bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act in 2006. Meanwhile very little was done on the ground to improve policing or implement the recommendations put forth by any of these committees or commissions.
The seven directions in Prakash Singh Case:
A decade later in 2006 the Court delivered its verdict. In what is popularly referred to as the Prakash Singh case. The Supreme Court ordered that reform must take place. States and Union territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick start reform. These directives pulled together the various strands of improvement generated since 1979. The Court required immediate implementation of its orders either through executive orders or new police legislation. Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all states and union territories. However, in 2008 it set up a three-member Monitoring Committee with a two year mandate to examine compliance state by state and report back to it periodically.
Seven directions of Supreme Court:
Just to escape from the Contempt of Court, many states brought in new Police Acts which were not in line with the Supreme Court’s directions. On 9th May 2013 Amicus Curie Harish Salve filed a petition challenging constitutional validity of Police Acts passed by 15 states post Supreme Court judgement. Court admitted the petition and issued notices to all states.
In this situation we feel it is very essential to have a dedicated program to make police an independent, autonomous body which will not only strictly adhere to the Rule of Law but also will implement the Rule of Law without interference from the clutches of law makers and bureaucrats.
