Roundtable on Policing and Public Order

A Roundtable on the ‘Policing and Public Order’ was organised by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in collaboration with the second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in New Delhi on 10 June, 2006. Participants included civil liberties lawyers, social activists and Non-Government Organisations’ leaders from across the country. The Roundtable was organised after the ARC had been tasked by the Government of India to suggest a framework to strengthen the administrative machinery to maintain public order in a way conducive to social harmony and economic development. CHRI felt that it was important for the ARC to have the benefit of the civil liberties perspective in framing its recommendations on tackling public order issues, to which policing is key.

Background to the Roundtable: The “authoritarian impulse” in the official discourse

While problems with policing are widely acknowledged, suggested approaches to tackle them differ vastly. The ‘authoritarian impulse’ leans towards diluting due process and fair trial guarantees, granting the police greater powers, more discretion and increased physical and financial resources, while leaving the traditional methods and structures of policing essentially unchanged. Proponents of this approach felt that the prevailing problems of terrorism, insurgency and naxalism, which are threatening the security of the country, are symptoms of a weak State. Hence, the capacity of the police – which is the most visible arm of the State – to tackle these growing threats should be enhanced to provide for special powers of arrest, detention, remand and use of force to deal with internal disturbance.

In addition, this school of thought considers that the criminal justice system – of which the police are a vital part – is heavily loaded in favour of the accused and the police are being hindered in their ability to tackle crime due to excessive emphasis on protecting the rights of the accused. Some of the solutions put forward were: reducing the standard of proof for conviction by the court from the current standard, which requires a case to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; making ‘previous bad character’ of the accused relevant in the trial; making ‘confessions’ made to police officers admissible as evidence in courts of law; compelling witnesses to sign statements made to the police in the course of an investigation; increasing the period of police remand; and merging the police and the prosecution. (Selected recommendations from the 2003 Report of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, known as the ‘Malimath Committee’)

Delegates’ recommendations

The discussions touched on the need to address ‘public disorder’ within the context of societal change rather than strictly in the realm of law enforcement. Failed governance, government highhandedness, and curtailed rights were identified as some of the root causes of large-scale public disorder. Delegates highlighted the fact that any new framework must be envisaged in the light of civil liberties, human rights and principles of democratic governance. They expressed the view that using the ‘authoritarian impulse’ as a cure would only increase the malaise.

Grave concerns were voiced on the repressive tone of recently enacted laws related to public order as well as the manner in which these laws are enforced. There was a consensus that whenever state powers have been expanded, abuses and infringement of human rights have followed. Delegates felt that there was no need to enact laws giving more powers to law enforcement agencies to tackle public order issues since the lacuna lies in police abuse or neglect in implementation rather than in insufficient laws. The Malimath Committee’s recommendations were strongly criticised on several fronts and unanimously rejected. Instead, recommendations were framed to minimise the possibility of disorder and to democratise governance.

The afternoon discussions largely focused on institutional police reform. Delegates expressed the view that the solution to public disorder is not to enhance police capabilities to crush dissent but to make all State agencies, particularly the police, more responsive to the people and more accountable to the law. Numerous practical recommendations were made to the ARC to enhance responsiveness and accountability of the police. A comprehensive report of the Roundtable has been presented to the ARC, which is currently drafting its final report to the Government.