IS THERE ANY REFORM IN POLICE REFORMS?
Friday, 11th January, 2008
Effective policing is an linportant component of good governance. The Punjab Assembly recently approved a new police bill for the state, having replaced the Police Act of 1861. Himachal Pradesh and Haryana have already passed their police Bills. Jammu and Kashmir is dithering on the issue, postulating insurgency in the state as an excuse.
Three, out of four states in the region have an effective two-party system, which encourages good governance. The Police Act is an important piece of legislation with far-reaching and significant ramifications ror the cornmon people and society at large. A sensitive, people-friendly police adds tremendous value to the virtues of civilised living. However, it is a matter of concern thilt governments of the region have not paid the kind of attention to the issue of policing that it deserves.
The existing police setup needs immediate overhaul.
The Supreme Court noted that “time had corne to rise above limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by unhealthy developments.” It attributed the present distortions in the functioning of the police to the Police Act of 1861 and hence the pressing need for immediate police reforms. On September 22, 2006, it issued directives to the Centre and states for immediate compliance until they frame “appropriate legislation” replacing the existing Act.
The directives are aimed at eliminating unwarranted pressure on the state police, promoting its functional autonomy and ensuring accountability for its omissions and commissions. These include, the setting up of state security commission in each state to lay down policy guidelines of the police and evaluate their performance; minimum tenure for the Director-General of Police and other operational officers; setting up of a Police Establishment Board headed by the DGP to examine police transfers, promotions and postings; and sel ting up of independent state and districtlevel complaint authorities with binding powers to look into public complaints of police misconduct.
The court’s directives distil the recommendations of several national reports on police reform over the last 25 years and should have served as a significant reference point in the drafting of police legislation by the states in the region. Regrettably this has not happened.
Compared with Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh is the most consistent in adhering to the spirit of the apex court’s directives. Under its new police Act, the State Police Board consists of 14 members, including three non-government persons to be appointed through a transparent manner by an independent panel. The Board’s recommendations “shall normally be binding on the state government.”
Haryana, however, has a 10-member body with three non-government members,
of whom one shall be a retired IPS officer, one a retired IAS officer and another member from public service, legal profession or social organisation, all appointed by the government. The government and its loyal retired officials thus dominate the Board.
In Punjab, the State Police Board shall have six members and no civil society representatives. It is composed of the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Advocate-General, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the DGP. The very purpose of establishing a body with sufficient checks and balances to prevent undue political pressure on the police is defeated under the new police laws of Haryana and Punjab.
Similarly, in Haryana, functional autonomy of the police is a major casualty. The Pollee Establishment Committee, instead of looking after crucial internal functions of transfers, promotions and postings of police as envisaged by the Supreme Court, is mandated to improving infrastructure, modernisation and training. This deliberate omission will continue to place police officials at the mercy of their political masters and unwarranted political-interference in the internal functioning of the police will persist unchecked. Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, however, have given sufficient teeth to their police establishment committees in matters of internal functioning.
On the crucial issue of police accountability for wrong doings, the police laws of the three states disappoint in varying degrees. The Punjab legislation is below expectations because accountability of the police for its misdeeds gets a cursory mention in one sentence, “the state government may notify and constitute a State level Police Complaint Authority as and when required.” There is no mention of District Complaint Authorities. It is a serious lapse in the proposed law. More than half the complaints received by the Punjab Human Rights Commission are against the state police. The Commission has neither independent investigation machinery nor binding recommendatory powers. The setting up of an effective complaint redressal mechanism under the new police law would have gone a long way to address a major need of the people.
Haryana too pays a token tribute to police accountability by establishing a singlemember complaint authority, without binding powers, to be headed by a retired judge, retired civil servarit or an experienced crirninallawyer. Why has the government chosen to keep the option of a retired bureaucrat or a lawyer to be appointed as the authority’s head when it involves investigative and judicial functions? The absence of District Complaints Authorities is a major gap in making redressal of complaints against the poliCe accessible to the people. More so because in Haryana, the police are often accused of bias against the weaker sections of society and the state does not have a Human Rights Commission.
Admittedly, Himachal Pradesh is the most progressive of the three states. How. ever, it too falls short of the benchmark’ set by the Supreme Court on police accountability. It establishes a single-member State Police Complaints Authority consisting of the Lokayukta to receive and inquire into allegations of criminal misconduct by . police. Thankfully though, the recommendations of the authority are binding on the state government. However, it creates District Complaints Authorities headed by the Divisional Commissioner and consisting of three other non-official members, which are mandared merely to forward complaints received to the state authority.
The archaic and colonial Police Act of 1861 and the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, have hitherto governed Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab. The opportunity to enact new police laws incorporating contemporary policing needs, concerns and priorities of the public and the police in these states was an ideal means to effect an overhaul of the existing police systems.
This opportunity does not appear to have been taken up in earnest when one examines the new laws passed in Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab.
The people of this region must not be let down in their right to have an accountable, performance-oriented, people-friendly police service free from undue political interference. The implementation of the new Acts must be closely monitored and pressure should be exened on the states to implement the Supreme Court’s directives and the Centre’s Model Police Act, 2006.
