Police Reform in India: The Supreme Court Takes a Decisive Step

On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India instructing central and state governments to comply with a set of seven directives laying down practical mechanisms to kick-start police reform. The Court’s directives seek to achieve two main objectives: functional autonomy for the police – through security of tenure, streamlined appointment and transfer processes, and the creation of a “buffer body” between the police and the government – and enhanced police accountability, both for organisational performance and individual misconduct. After decades of public pressure, lack of political will and continued poor policing, a police reform process is finally budding.

An acute need for police reform

The need for reform is particularly acute as the archaic Police Act of 1861 continues to govern policing, despite far reaching changes in governance. Even though policing is a state subject under the Constitution and states are supposed to enact their own Police Acts, most states have chosen to adopt the 1861 Act or an Act that closely resembles it. The 1861 Act and the kind of policing culture that has been allowed to flourish in independent India have led to countless abuses by police officers. In fact, the need for police reform has been acknowledged by successive governments, though never tackled on the ground. Since 1979, a number of commissions and committees have been set up to suggest ways to reform the police. Yet, the recommendations of these bodies have not been implemented and the reports largely ignored.

In 1996, two former Directors General of Police took the issue to the Supreme Court, requesting the Court to direct central and state governments to address the most glaring gaps and bad practice in the functioning of the police. Given the “gravity of the problem” and “total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced”, the Supreme Court considered in September 2006 that it could not “further wait for governments to take suitable steps for police reforms” and had to issue “appropriate directions for immediate compliance”. These directions are binding upon governments until they frame “appropriate legislation”.

A sound legislative template at hand

Meanwhile, as the Supreme Court was considering the matter, the central government set up a “Police Act Drafting Committee” (PADC) in 2005 to draft a new Model Police Act that could guide states in adopting their own legislation. Very shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, the PADC submitted its “Model Police Act, 2006” to the Union Home Minister1. The Model Police Act complements the Supreme Court judgment in that it provides the detailed nuts and bolts through which the directions of the Supreme Court can be most effectively implemented. The final version of the Model Police Act has been shared with state governments but is not yet available for the public in its final form.

A wide range of reactions by state governments

The Supreme Court required all governments, at centre and state levels, to comply with the seven directives by 31 December 2006 and to file affidavits of compliance by the 3rd of January 2007. State government responses have varied tremendously, ranging from complying in time with the directives through executive orders, to expressing strong objections to the directives and asking the Court to review them. Others have requested the Court to grant them more time to comply with the judgment.

On 11 January 2007, the Supreme Court cast away the objections raised and stated that its directions had to be complied with without any modification. The Court granted a three month extension to comply with four of its directives, while stating that the others had to be complied with immediately. A number of states have taken the initiative to put in place special committees to draft a new Police Bill and committed to introducing it in the legislature in the coming months. It is hoped that these new pieces of legislation will be openly debated and ultimately reflect the essence of the Supreme Court judgment.

The judgment is the first tangible step towards police reform in a long time but also only an initial step. What is now required is strong political will to introduce long-lasting reform and not merely cosmetic changes.