SC directives on police reforms stay on paper

The Centre may be coming out with steps to tackle terror attacks, but one of its most glaring failures has been the non-enforcement of Supreme Court directives on police reforms.

There is no word from either the Centre or its new home minister or any of the states on plans to implement these directives, which will ensure that the police meant for law and order duties and that meant for investigation are not the same.

The reform would have ensured that the police investigating the Malegaon blasts were not pressed in to fight the terrorists holed up at the Hotel Taj Mahal in Mumbai.

Again, according to the directives that were issued in October 2006, a state security commission is to be set up so that state governments don’t exercise influence or pressure on the police. This would ensure that Director Generals of Police, Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers have a minimum tenure of two years.

The Supreme Court also asked for setting up of a police establishment board to decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and make recommendations on postings and transfers of officers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The directives also call for setting up a National Security Commission at the Centre to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the central police organisations, who should also be given a tenure of two years.

The apex court suggested setting up of independent police complaint authorities in the states and districts to look into public complaints against police officers.

All these directives were spelt out in 2006 in response to a PIL by two former DGPs N K Singh and Prakash Singh in 1996.

What the Centre and the home ministry have done so far is to set up a law drafting committee under Soli Sorabjee which submitted a draft Model Police Act to the ministry. Things have not moved forward from there.

In the states, just 10 states have assured the court that they would implement the directives in their new police legislation.

The country still follows police laws drafted in colonial times, viz the Police Act, 1861.
 

SC DIRECTIVES

* Separate law and order from investigation

* Set up Police Establishment Board for postings, transfers

* Two-year tenure for DGP, SP, SHO

* Set up National Security Commission for posting of police chiefs

* Set up police complaints authority

* Set up state security commissions

Prakash Singh said: “Just 10 states have given an assurance on paper but are yet to set up any mechanism to implement these. These are all tiny states, mostly in the North-East, while the bigger states have ignored them so far.” He added that even the Centre had failed to enforce the directives.

“Had the Centre enforced these directives, at least the Union Territories including Delhi would have got a reformed set-up. But it has not be done so far. Former home minister Shivraj Patil and his deputy made countless assurances in Parliament on the Model Police Act but it is yet to see the light of day,” Singh said.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati recently announced some steps to strengthen the state police. But she was silent on the police reforms that are pending and for which the state has to face the court.

Singh, who was a former DGP of Uttar Pradesh, said: “UP is one of the biggest offenders as it has not done anything to implement the court directives. It is followed by Bihar, which has got a new police Act but is so regressive that it takes it back to the days of East India Company.”

According to Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative director Maja Daruwala: “This time it was Taj and terrorists. But on a daily basis, how many people in Delhi alone get murdered, maimed, robbed and raped? Is the police able to prevent and investigate such cases and come to a quick solution? The fact is that ordinary security is not available. Had Supreme Court directives been obeyed, they would have removed police from political control, giving it operational responsibility.”