1

1. Details of Module and its Structure

Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name Public Policy, Governance and Indian Administration

Module Name/Title Criminalization of Politics and Administration, Police Reforms in India

Pre-requisites Police administration in India, Parliamentary System in India,

Relationship between Political and Permanent Executive

Objectives To understandcriminalization of politics and administration and to

studypolice reforms.

Keywords Criminalization, Police Reforms, Politics and Administration

Structure of Module / Syllabus of a module

Criminalization of

Politics and

Administration,

Police Reforms in India

Introduction, Scenario of Criminalization of Politics in India, Reasons

for Criminalization of Politics, Measures to Check Criminalization of

Politics and Administration, Police Reforms in India and Conclusion.

2

2. Development Teams

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Department of Political

Science, Panjab University,

Chandigarh

Paper Coordinator

Prof. Ramanjit Kaur Johal,

Prof. Amit Prakash

Department of Public

Administration, Panjab

University, Chandigarh.

Centre for Law and

Governance, SSS, Jawahar

Lal Nehru University, New

Delhi.

Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr. Shaveta Begra

&

Ms. Keerat Pal Kaur

MCM DAV College,

Chandigarh

Department of Public

Administration, Panjab

University, Chandigarh

Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Akshat Mehta Centre for Police

Administration, Panjab

University, Chandigarh

Language Editor (LE)

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Introduction

2. Scenario of Criminalization of Politics and Administration in India

3. Reasons for Criminalization of Politics and Administration in India

3.1 Demerits of Criminalization of Politics and Administration in India

4. Measures to check Criminalization of Politics and Administration

4.1 N.N. Vohra Committee Report, 1993

4.2 Supreme Court Directive: Preventive Measure

5. Police Reforms in India

5.1 Background

5.2 Major Committees on Police Reforms

5.2.1 Gore Committee on Police Training (1971-73)

5.2.2 National Police Commission (1977)

5.2.3 Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)

5.2.4 Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)

5.2.5 Police Act Drafting Committee (2005-06)

5.2.6 The Supreme Court Directives (2006-07)

6. Conclusion

4

Objectives of the Module

After reading this module, you will be able:

1. To understand the meaning and impact of criminalization of politics

2. To identify the various commissions and committees involved in police reforms.

Summary

In rapidly changing world, law and order administration has become the worst victim of corruption and

criminalization.Criminalization of politics in India has assumed a dangerous proportion. Large number of

criminal elements has become the part of legislature. Consequently, the development of the nation is

adversely affected and desired national goals could not be accomplished. It is evident from the statistical

data of the 16thLokSabha elections that political arena is dominated by the criminals enjoying political

patronage.

Furthermore, both criminalization of politics and administration has eclipsed the working of police;

reducing it to a puppet in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. This, therefore, calls for reforming the

functioning of police. As a result, various commissions and committees have been established to identify

the grey areas in police administration and to suggest measures for rectifying the same. Ironically, the

recommendations of the commissions and committees continued to gather dust and could not see the

daylight. Thus, lack of political will to implement these reforms seems to be the major hurdle in such

reformation.

5

6

1. INTRODUCTION

Democracy is the most popular form of government, where people either directly or through their

representatives run the administration of the country. To shape the representative form of government

political parties were formed. India being a heterogeneous and culturally complex and geographically

vast country opted for multiparty system. Gradually the electoral process became struggle for power and

competition between various parties now has become more severe. In order to win the election and get

into the power political parties started resorting to illegitimate methods and sources. Use of money and

muscle power of the criminals is borrowed to secure maximum votes. This use of money and muscle

power and unacceptable practices offend the foundations of the democratic system. After coming into

power the political leaders have to return the favour to these criminals for which they often neglect the

rules and laws and give undue favours to them. Initially the criminals worked behind the scene by

indirectly supporting the political parties, but now these criminals have started contesting elections and

become the ministers. “The country is under the grip of evils like social strife, violence, role of mafia,

money and muscle over the election as well whole system”.1Under these circumstances corruption and

criminalization of politics became rampant in India.

Criminalization is the process which changes the behaviors into crimes and individuals into criminals. It

is, therefore, an institutionalized process through which certain acts or behaviors are termed as ‘crime’

and ‘outlawed’.2 Hence, the increasing participation of criminals in political activities has led to

criminalization of politics as well as politicization of criminals. In India, this phenomenon has assumed

unmanageable dimension and is now spreading its tentacles to other organs of the government i.e.

executive and judiciary. Further, the political influences and pressures have eclipsed the functioning of

the police force. This calls for reforming the structure and functioning of police. Police reforms are

essential to acclimatize the police functioning with the changing socio- political and economicalscenario

and also to equip the police to cope the changing nature and scope of crime and criminal activities.

Criminalization of Politics has become a grave problem in current scenario. With increasing number of

people with criminal records becoming Member of Parliament and Member of State Legislative

Assembly, mal-administration and malfeasancehas become the feature of Indian administration. The

Indian democracy, therefore, is in the hands of the criminals resulting in criminalization of administration.

This implies that since the political positions are manned by criminals as a result bureaucracy has become

corrupt and criminalized. Furthermore, the growing criminalization of politics has adversely affected the

policing of the country. The consequent escalation in rate of various crimes and diminishing rate of

conviction is the most obvious outcome of this phenomenon.

The Vohra Committee in its report on Criminalization of Politics stated that “The nexus between the

criminal gangs, police, bureaucracy and politicians has come out clearly in various parts of the country”

and that “some political leaders become the leaders of these gangs/armed senas and over the years get

1 D.K. Jena, “Judiciary: A Check to Criminalization in Indian Politics”. International Journal of Social Science and

Humanities Research. 2, Issue 4, (2014): 325-332. Available at: www.researchpublish.com 2Eugene Mclaughlin, and John Muncie, eds. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, London: Sage Publications, 2013.

7

themselves elected to local bodies, State assemblies, and national parliament.”. Hence, it is evident that

criminalization of politics has consolidated its root in Indian political system.3

2. Scenario of Criminalization of Politics in India4

Criminalization of Politics has reached a dangerous level in India. The Association for Democratic

Reforms analyses the magnitude to which criminalization has reached in politics in India. It has been

observed by ADR that number of MPs with criminal cases has been increasing. From 2004 to 2009 the

number of MPs with criminal records has been increased 27% and at the same time the number of MPs

with declared serious criminal charges increased by 38% (Fig 1). This increase in number of

representatives with criminal records is threat to democratic system.

During 2014 LokSabha elections, 17 per cent of 5,380 candidates have declared criminal charges in their

affidavits submitted to the Election Commission and 10 per cent have declared serious criminal charges

such as murder and rape charges. AamAadmi Party (AAP) candidate S.P. Udayakumar, Kanyakumari

constituency, Tamil Nadu, faced the highest number of criminal cases – 382 including 19 charges related

to Attempt to Murder (IPC section 307) and 16 charges related to sedition (IPC section 124A). He is

closely followed by M. Pushparayan, also an AAP candidate, Thoothukudi constituency, Tamil Nadu,

with 380 criminal cases. In 2014 election, out of the six national parties i.e. the Indian National Congress

[INC], the BharatiyaJanata Party [BJP], the Nationalist Congress Party [NCP], the BahujanSamaj Party

[BSP], the Communist Party of India [CPI], and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI-M], the

NCP has the highest percentage of candidates with criminal candidates (57 per cent) followed by the CPI

(M) (40 per cent). The NCP also has the highest percentage of candidates with serious criminal charges

(39 per cent) followed by the BJP (18 per cent).

3Government of India, Background Paper on Electoral Reforms, New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice,

December, 2010. 4Nithya Nagarathinam, “Criminalization of Politics”,The Hindu, April 30, 2014.

Figure 1

8

The State-wise analysis of candidates facing criminal cases shows that the state of Goa (32 per

cent), Kerala (29 per cent), Bihar (26 per cent) and Jharkhand (26 per cent) has the highest

percentage of candidates with criminal background. On the other hand, the state of Rajasthan (6

per cent candidates face criminal charges), Haryana (7 per cent candidates face criminal charges)

and Assam (7 per cent candidates face criminal charges) has the lowest number of candidates.

Thus, it is apparent that the administration of our country is now in the hands of the criminals.

In 15thLokSabha, almost all the major national political parties have MPs with criminal charges

(Table 1). This trend of increasing number of MPs with criminal records needs to be stopped.

Political Party Percentage of MPs with criminal charges in 15th

LokSabha

BJP 35% (97 out of 281)

INC 18% (8 out of 44)

AIADMK 16% (6 out of 37)

Shiv Sena 83% (15 out of 18)

AITC 21% (7 out of 34)

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms

Table 1

3. Reasons for Criminalization of Politics and Administration

Criminalization of politics has become a serious issue in Indian Political System. There is need to check

this trend otherwise entire system may collapse. There are various factors which gave role to criminals in

electoral process that resulted in their participation in political system at first indirectly and now directly

by becoming ministers. Political system of India as discussed earlier is based on multiparty system where

candidate securing the maximum votes becomes MP. Political parties have to undertake huge

expenditure for buying votes and other illegitimate purposes. Often due to lack of funds, political parties

associate criminals by using their muscle and money power to win elections. Criminals are often wooed

by political parties and given cabinet posts because of their muscle and money power which fetches

crucial votes. Elections are won and lost on swings of just 1% of the vote, so parties cynically woo every

possible vote bank, including those headed by accused robbers and murderers. Loop holes in the legal

system causes delays in judgement which often results in death of accused due to old age even before

being convicted, and these criminals are regarded innocent till proved guilty.

Corruption is another cause of this malaise. Corruption begins with very high election budgets of

candidates. The statutory limit for election expenses is too less as compared to the expenses incurred by

candidates in practice. Therefore, to bear these expenses candidates often take help or favour from

underworld. Once the candidate becomes an MP, MLA or a minister, he has to reciprocate to his donors

in a big way. This is the root cause of corruption.Corruption at higher levels of political leadership travels

down the entire political and administrative apparatus and reaches the unwitting civilian.5

5 “Role Of Election Commission in Curbing Corrupt Practices: Electoral Reforms” http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8114/11/11_chapter%205.pdf accessed on

9

Indian law assumes innocence until guilt is established. This leaves the scope for those chargesheeted

criminals who are habitual offenders but yet have not been held guilty by the court. Thus, without

conviction an offender is not criminal. Mere charge-sheets and pending cases are not enough to bar a

person from being nominated to contest an election. This allows the charge sheeted persons to contest

elections and enter into the political office.Therefore, the absence of strong laws against convicted

criminals contesting elections further encourages the process of criminalization of politics.

There is strong nexus between criminals and politicians. The Election Commission must take adequate

measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians. “The Election Commission has

prescribed forms for the contestants of elections to disclose their property details, cases pending in courts,

convictions, and so on while filing their nomination papers.This is a positive step taken by the

Commission to make the voters known about the criminal history of the candidate but it has not been

effectively applied. These disclosures only inform people about the candidate’s background and

qualifications, but do not forbid them from casting their franchise, irrespective, in favour of a criminal.”6

Thus, there is need of strong laws to refrain people with criminal records to contest elections to

authoritative bodies and also to forbid politicians to get involved in criminal activities.

3.1 Demerits of Criminalization of Politics and Administration in India

Criminalization of Politics and Politicization of criminals are the two sides of the same coin. The rising

number of politicians with criminal background has proved to be a bane adversely affecting the

administration of the country in numerous ways:

i. The phenomenon has eroded the credibility, effectiveness and impartiality of police functioning.

Consequently, the common man have lost trust and confidence in working of police

ii. The thriving nexus between criminal gangs and bureaucracy & police influence the working of

investigation and prosecution agencies by patronizing the criminals and criminal activities.

iii. The existingdecline in conviction rate clearly shows that the judiciary has also become the victim of

criminalization of politics since the criminals enjoy political patronage.

iv. Criminalization of politics has institutionalized corruption in the administration since the politician

go to any length to please the people, mainly business houses and criminal gangs, who sponsored

their election expenses.

v. The number of political parties has multiplied because the criminals consider it an easy gateway to

attain power and position to influence the functioning of administrative system.

4. Measures to check criminalization of politics and administration

Various committees on politics and electoral reforms discussed the ill-effects of criminalization of politics

and administration.In order to combat this menace, the Vohra Committee was constituted to spot the

degree of the politician-criminal nexus.

4.1 N.N. Vohra Committee Report, 1993

The Vohra report on Criminalization of Politics stated that the nexus between the criminal gangs, police,

bureaucracy and politicians has come out clearly in various parts of the country.It highlighted

involvement of black money in elections and it is this use of black money in elections which has also

brought about the criminalization of politics.The various crime syndicates /mafia organisations have

developed significant muscle and money power and established linkages with governmental functionaries,

6N. Sharma, “Criminalisation of Politics- A Threat to Democracy”. Law Mantra,3 Issue 2,3. Accessed from: http://journal.lawmantra.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/10.pdf

10

political leaders and others to be able to operate with impunity. It becomes evident from the number of

criminals becoming MPS and Ministers. Hence, it is evident that criminalization of politics has

consolidated its roots in Indian political system.7

4.2. Supreme Court Directive: Preventive Measure

As no concrete measures were being taken by the Government, aPublic Interest Litigation was filed by

the NGO i.e."Citizens for National Consensus" (CNC) in Supreme Court highlighting the required

changes in the Representation of Peoples' Act to limit the criminalization of politics. On May 2, 2002, the

Supreme Court in historic ruling stated that candidate contesting an election to Parliament, State

Legislatures or Municipal Corporation has to make the following declaration along with the application

for his/her candidature.

i. A candidate's criminal records (convictions, acquittals and charges)

ii. The candidate's financial records (assets & liabilities)

iii. The candidate's educational qualifications

The Supreme Court has ruled that all the three declarations will have to be truthful and failure of which

would call for penalization. The Election Commission had sent a notification to all State Election Officers

with a view to enforce it. The Returning Officer has been empowered to reject the nomination paper, if

the candidates fail to provide the three declarations. Later, the Returning Officerwould publish these

declarations for the voters' knowledge. Further, it had been provided that if the opposing candidate

brought out a convincing document to prove that the declaration of his opponent is false, then the

Returning Officer had been authorized to reject the nomination. If a candidate is illiterate, it could not

become a reason for rejection of his/her nomination papers. Hence, the basic thrust of the Supreme

Court's ruling has been that the people and the voters have the right to know about the candidate's

criminal record, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications.8

The thriving nexus between criminal gangs and bureaucracy & police influence the working of

investigation and prosecution agencies by patronizing the criminals and criminal activities.The increasing

criminalization of politics has affected policing of the country adversely. “This phenomenon has further

eroded the credibility, effectiveness, and impartiality of the police and resulted into lack of trust and

confidence in police forces in large sections of the society….The administration and the police are the

first causalities of criminalisationof the politics, resulting into a system of law that is neither fair nor

impartial.”9 Therefore, there is need to take serious measures to reform the present system of policing in

order to alter the system to suit the present requirements.

5. Police Reforms in India

Police administration is governed by an archaic and colonial police law passed in 1861. The Indian

Police Act of 1861 is the basic and fundamental in the management of police forces in India. However,

7J. Loura, “Election Reforms in India vis-a-vis Criminalization of Politics and Right to Reject- A Review.” International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR),3, No. 3, (March 2014): 35-40. 8 Minch, M.I. “CriminalisationOf Politics And Indian Administration”. Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2, Issue 10, (October 2013). accessed from http://prj.co.in/setup/socialscience/paper74.pdf on June 23, 2017 9L.R. Chaudhary, “Criminalisation of Politics and Administration (India)”.International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 7 Issue 5, (May 2017): 349-362. Accessed from https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2017/IJRSS_MAY2017/IJMRA-11516.pdf on June 23, 2017

11

the problems of modern society have outgrown the parameters of the Act of 1861.Further, the several

present manifestations of crimes and disorder cannot be handled by this archaic Act. This, therefore, calls

for reforming the present police structure. Secondly, the administrative structure of the present police

system has developed numerous in-built faults such as faulty recruitment system, inadequate training

system, defective promotion system, unsatisfactory working conditions and so on. Thirdly, with

advancement in science and technology, the nature of criminal activities has undergone a sea change.

This, therefore, challenges both the mental ability and academic knowledge of the police personnel.

Lastly, the politicization of police force has adversely affected the performance of police force. Hence, it

has become imperative to revamp the police administration in India to guarantee greater efficiency and

efficacy.

5.1 Background

In medieval period, the system of policing was existent in form of the zamindari system. A zamindar was

responsible for restoration of peace and order in his jurisdiction. As the head, he had to keep a check on

all kinds of criminal activities. He, along with collection of land revenue, penalized offenders for various

offences such as theft, rioting and so on. However, during the British rule, the powers of zamindars were

delegated to the magistrates and separate police services were created. The British made several attempts

to reform the police system. The first step was the establishment of the Police Commission of 1860. The

Police Act of 1861 was the major outcome the recommendations of the Commission. Later, the Indian

Police Commission was constituted in 1902.

In post-independence era, the Police Act of 1861 continued to be the pedestal of police administration in

India. Nevertheless, the need for police reforms was felt with the passage of time. Thus, various

commissions and committee were established to review the structure and function of police

administration in India. The first step in this direction was the establishment of National Police

Commission in (1977) at national level. Besides, several committees were also established to undertake

the in-depth examination of police working in India. The major committees are as follows:

1. Gore Committee on Police Training (1971-73)

2. National Police Commission (1977)

3. Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)

4. Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)

5. Police Act Drafting Committee (2005-06)

6. The Supreme Court Directives (2006-07)

5.2 Major Committees on Police Reforms

Apart from NPC, several committees have been constituted from time to time to promote police reforms.

The major committees have been discussed below:

5.2.1 Gore Committee on Police Training (1971-73)

The Committee was set up under the chairmanship of M.S. Gore to review the training of police force i.e.

from the constabulary level to the Indian Police Service. The Committee recommended thatin view of the

vast powers and wide discretion enjoyed by the police, the recruitment procedure should be free from

political, personal and corrupt influences.

12

The Committee stressed the importance of psychologicaltests and pre-entry orientation for efficient

recruitment procedure. The various State Police Commissions have also recommended the introduction of

intelligence and psychological tests for Constables and Sub-Inspectors. These tests would facilitate to

judge the personality traits and the IQ level of the recruit. The Committee also recommended the setting

up of a small cell in the Bureau of Police Research and Development for developing the psychological

tests.

5.2.2 National Police Commission (1977)10

The Government of India appointed a National Police Commission in 1977 to undertake the

comprehensive review of the role and performance of the police in view of changing social, political and

economic situation in the country. The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979 and 1981,

which contained comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. The

recommendations of the reports are as follows:

i. In first report, the Commission recommended that the system of functioning of the constables should

be radically changed. They should be so recruited and trained for undertaking functions that calls for

requisite decision-making and judgment. It also suggested for establishment of grievances redressal

machinery within the police organization.

ii. In second report, the Commission flayed the mis-utilization of police in terms of interference by illegal

or improper orders or pressure from political executives or other extraneous sources. The Commission

recommended the establishment of a statutory body called the ‘State Security Commission’ in each

state in order to reduce the state government’s influence in police working.

iii. In third report, the Commission highlighted deficiencies of the procedural laws and the evils of

suppression of crime by non-registration of cases. It recommended that the district Superintendent of

Police should select officers in-charge of police stations and similarly the selection and posting of

Superintendents of Police should be the exclusive responsibility of the Chief of Police.

iv. In fourth report, the Commission highlighted the need for achieving high degree of coordination

between the investigating staff and prosecuting agency. It further suggested reforms for facilitating

judicious conduct of investigations. It laid down the parameters of police involvement for enforcement

of social legislation.

v. In fifth report, the Commission dealt with the recruitment of constables and sub-inspectors and laid

emphasis on their proper training.

vi. In sixth report, the Commission recommended the establishment of police commissionerates in large

cities with a population of five hundred thousand and above. It also recommended certain measures to

improve the police handling and investigation of cases of communal riots.

vii. In seventh report, the Commission dealt with the internal management of the police force and

recommended that this should be entirely under the purview of the Chief of Police.

viii. In eighth report, the Commission recommended that an independent cell should be established inthe

State Security Commission to evaluate police performance in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

Besides, the Commission drafted a model Police Bill which could be enacted. It recommended that the

current police Act should be replaced. The new law should change the system of superintendence and

control over the police and mandate the police to promote the rule of law and render impartial service to

the community.

Ironically, the recommendations of NPC received a cold treatment at the hands of the Government of

India. The political leadership and bureaucracy lacked willingness to give functional autonomy to the

10 Prakash Singh “Police Reforms in India- Historical Perspective” People’s Police Movement. http://www.peoplepolicemovement.com/history_police_reforms.html accessed on June 23, 2017

13

police. This could be attributed to despotic attitude where they don’t want themselves to be rendered

powerless. Furthermore, the Act of 1861 continued to be on the statute even after nearly 150 years.

5.2.3Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)

In 1996, two former senior police officers through public interest litigation requested the Supreme Court

to direct the governments of India to implement the recommendations of the National Police Commission.

Thereby, in May 1998, the government set up the Ribeiro Committee in compliance with the directions of

theCourt. The Committee was to review action taken to implementthe recommendations of the National

Police Commission, the National Human RightsCommission and the Vohra Committee, to suggest ways

and means to implement the pending recommendations and to make any other recommendations which

itconsidered necessary.The Committee released two reports. The first report was released in October

1998, dealt withthe Supreme Court's specific concerns. The second, more general report wasreleased in

March 1999.11

The Committee recommended the setting up of Police Performance and Accountability Commissions at

the State level; Constitution of a District Complaints Authority; Replacement of the Police Act, 1861 with

a new Act;Establishment of District Police Complaint Authority; Police Establishment Board;

Enhancement of quality of police training; Separation of investigation and law & order functions of police

and so on.

5.2.4Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)

In January 2000, the central government constituted another committee known as the Padmanabhaiah

Committee on Police Reforms to look in to the required reforms in police functioning. The Committee's

scope of study was very wide.The Committee was toexamine challenges that the police would face in the

next millennium; to envision apeoples’ friendly police force and yet able to effectively tackle problems of

organized crime, militancy and terrorism; to identify mechanisms to insulate police frompolitical

interference; consider redressal of public grievances and of police grievances and to devise ways of

securing public trust and cooperation. The Committee completed its report in August 200012.

The Committee recommended for replacement of the Act of 1861 with a new legislation. It made

recommendation with different aspects of police personnel administration i.e. recruitment, training,

promotion, appointment, transfer and tenure. The Committee recommended for separation of

investigation and law & order functions at the police station levels. For upgradation of police

performance, it recommended for definition of performance standards and enhanced police

accountability.

5.2.5 Police Act Drafting Committee (2005- 06)

The Government of India set up the Police ActDrafting Committee, chaired by Soli Sorabjee in 2005. The

Committee was todraft a new Police Act in light of thechanging role and responsibilities of the police. It

had to consider the increasing challenges presented byinsurgency, militancy and naxalism in India. The

new Act has to include measures to change the police attitude and incorporate community's expectations

of a modern police service. The new Police Act should address the issues of humanrights, concerns for

women, and people belonging to Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes. The Committee submitted a

Model Police Act to the union government inOctober 2006.Some of the major features of the draft Bill

are:

11R.K., Sharma, C. Singh, and Akshat Mehta, “Police Reforms in India: A Critical Appraisal”. Research Journal Social Sciences, 16, No. 1 (2008): 1-28. 12Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives 2011. “Police Reform Debates in India” accessed from: http://humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/PRDebatesInIndia.pdf

14

i. Superintendence of State police should be vested in the State Government; StateGovernment to

exercise superintendence over police through laying downpolicies and guidelines, facilitating

their implementation and ensuring thatthe police performs its task in a professional manner with

functionalautonomy.

ii. The State Government should appoint the Director General of Police from amongst three senior

most officers, empanelled for the rank.Empanelment should be done by the State Police Board.

iii. The tenure the Director General of Police should be minimum of two years irrespective of his

date of retirement.

iv. There should be security of tenure for key police functionaries.

v. District Magistrate should play a coordinating role at the district level.

vi. Initial appointment should be at Civil Police Officer Grade-II and Sub-Inspector levels.

vii. The State Police Board, headed by the Home Minister, should be constituted. TheState Police

Boards should frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient,effective, responsive and

accountable policing, in accordance with law;prepare panels for appointment of the Director

General of Police; identifyperformance parameters to evaluate the functioning of the police

services andreview and evaluate organizational performance of the police service in thestate.

viii. Constitution of Police Establishment Committee.

ix. Definition of the role, functions, duties and social responsibilities of thepolice.

x. Constitution of a village police system.

xi. Creation of Special Security Zones.

xii. Constitution of a State Police Accountability Commission to inquire intopublic complaints

against police.

xiii. Constitution of a District Accountability Authority.

The Committee, thus, proposed an all-embracing legislation for improvingadministration of police in

India.

5.2.6 Prakash Singh vs. Union of India: the Supreme Court Directives (2006-07)13

In 1996 two former Director Generals of Police filed a public interest case and requested the Supreme

Court to direct central and state governments to address the poor quality and performance of police in

India. In 2006, the Court ruled that given the “gravity of the problem” and “total uncertainty as to when

police reforms would be introduced” it would issue “appropriate directions for immediate compliance”.

These directions are binding upon central and state governments. Governments were required to comply

with its directions by the end of March 2007.

With the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of three institutions at the

state level to insulate the police from extraneous influences, giving it functional autonomy and ensuring

its accountability. These institutions are:

State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the

performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police;

Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior

officers of the department which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service

related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make

13Commonwealth Human Rights initiatives, “Police Reforms Debates in India”, 2011. http://humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/PRDebatesInIndia.pdf

15

appropriate recommendations regarding the postings and transfers of officers of the rank of

Superintendent of Police and above to the State Government;

Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to inquiring into

allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the directives issued by the Apex Court with regard to the management of personnel at the top

level are as follows:

The Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three

senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by

the Union Public Service Commission. These officials shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of

two years.

Police officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General of Police of a Zone,

Deputy Inspector General of a Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge of a district and Station

House Officer in-charge of a police station would also have a minimum tenure of two years.

The function of investigating police should be separated from the law and order police to ensure

speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government was also asked to set up a National Security Commission for the

selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading the effectiveness of

these forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

Some states i.e.the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,

Sikkim, Tripura, Uttrakhand and Goa have complied with the directions of the Supreme Court. It must be

clarified however that the directions are yet to be implemented on the ground. Some other states like

Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal

have partially complied with the directions. Twelve states (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana,

Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura and Uttrakhand) have drafted laws with

a view to circumventing the implementation of Supreme Court's directions. The Bihar Police Bill is

particularly perverse. Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are among the most non-compliant states14.

However, there has been tardy compliance of the Court directives by the State Governments. The

politicians and bureaucrats were not willing to loosen their hold over the police. In 2008, the Supreme

Court set up a Monitoring Committee under the chairmanship of Justice K. T. Thomas to gauge the level

of compliance of its directions by the states and union territories. The Committee submitted its report in

August 2010. In its report, the Committee highlighted that the states have undertaken half-hearted

compliance of the Court directives and no substantial police reforms has been introduced by the state

governments. To cap it all, the Union Government too has failed to show any sincere attempt for

reforming police functioning.

6.CONCLUSION

14 http://www.cipsa.in.

16

After about 70 years of independence, criminalization of politics and administration has gained strong

foothold in the political system. The dominance of politicians with criminal background has been evident

from the increasing number of criminals contesting the elections. Further, criminalization of politics has

adversely affected the functioning of executive and judiciary. This, in turn, has damaged the internal fiber

of democracy. The efforts to check the increasing criminal participation in politics have failed because the

functioning of the police has been eclipsed by the political influences and pressures. Various commissions

and committees have also observed the need to insulate police from political interference along with

structural, procedural and behavioural reforms. Despite the recommendations of several commissions and

committees on police, the police reforms in India have not been implemented in letter and spirit. The

reforms in police administration are not only required to ensure the vitality and credibility of police but

also for the survival of democratic structure and success of economic reforms.15 Hence, there is need to

adopt a more pragmatic and objective approach to implement police reforms.

15Sharma,Singh & Mehta, Police Reforms in India.