New Police Laws - Shrouded in Secrecy
Shobha Sharma
Coordinator, Police Reforms, Access to Justice Programme, CHRI
In the wake of
police reform measures ushered in by the Supreme Court’s judgment
in the Prakash Singh & Others Versus the Union of India and Others
in September 2006, many states have commenced drafting new police
legislation. Policing is a state subject therefore states can
legislate on it. Where a state does not have its own police Act,
the Central government’s Police Act of 1861 applies.
This can be seen
as a hugely positive step for a country still operating under
the archaic and colonial Police Act of 1861. There is an urgent
need for a complete re-write of police laws in India. Some headway
was made in this direction when the Ministry of Home Affairs set
up the Police Act Drafting Committee in 2005. The Police Act Drafting
Committee submitted its Model Police Act, 2006 to the Ministry
of Home Affairs in October 2006.
Unfortunately,
no more has been heard of the Model Police Act with the exception
of the Union Home Minister’s pronouncement that it would
be tabled at the budget session of Parliament in February 2007.
The budget session has come and long gone with no news.
Despite being
a government that put police reform on the agenda and that embarked
on major administrative reform, the Union government is setting
a poor example for the states by dragging its heels on the issue
of new police legislation. In the meantime, states have commenced
drafting their own police laws. What is emerging, however, are
laws that do not embody the principles of modern democratic policing.
States that have
led the way in passing new police Acts in 2007 include Haryana,
Tripura, Kerala, Bihar, Tripura, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Assam and Punjab. Many other states such as Madhya
Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Meghalya,
Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Jharkhand and Arunachal
Pradesh are still drafting laws, which are in various stages of
completion.
New police laws
are of enormous significance to the public. Information about
them and the process leading up to their development is certainly
useful and important to the community at large. It stands to reason
that consulting those who will be implementing the Act, namely
the police, and those who will be impacted by its implementation
– namely the public at large, will go a long way to ensuring
that a sound and effective law is created.
A broad based
consultative process will not only educate the public but also
strengthen democracy. Yet we hear nothing. The legislation is
being developed in secrecy. Without a single exception the members
of the public in all the states are completely unaware that their
state government is even contemplating bringing in new police
legislation. This is in a country with the most progressive Right
to Information Act in the world.
Under India’s
Right to Information Act the general public can get access to
a range of information from public authorities. In addition to
the information that the general public can apply for, public
authorities are also required to publish proactively a wide range
of information on their own, even if no one has specifically requested
it. This is a key provision of the Right to Information Act because
it recognises that some information is so useful and important
to the community at large that it should be given out without
anyone specifically requesting it. More broadly, it recognises
that transparency is generally in the public interest and that
public authorities should therefore strive to make as much information
public as possible.
Section 4 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 requires all public authorities
to routinely publish 17 categories of information, which should
be updated regularly. These categories include information about
the structure of the organisation, its process of functioning,
financial details and schemes relating to the organisation, details
of consultative arrangements and details relating to accessing
informaition. Of particular significance in the present circumstance
of numerous new police bills being drafted al over the country
is Section 4 (1) (c), which says:
Every public authority
shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies
or announcing the decisions which affect public.
The important
words in this section are ‘while formulating policies’.
The Act does not provide for the provision of information after
formulating policies. The public has a right to be involved in
the formulation of policy. Public authorities have a legal obligation
to involve the public. There is no evidence this is occurring
in the lead up to the introduction of new police laws in various
states.
It could be argued
that Section 4 (1) (c) refers to “policy” and not
“legislation”, and therefore home departments (the
department responsible for police) are not obliged to publish
information about draft police legislation. However, the Right
to Information Act applies to all public authorities performing
a range of functions, which may span policy making as well as
law making. Section 4(1)(c) is therefore equally applicable to
the formulation of policies as well as laws.
There is a greater
onus on public authorities to make proactive disclosures to the
public about the drafting of laws, particularly one as significant
as a new Police Act. It’s only then that we will be able
to have a policing system of our choice.
Proactive disclosures
about the drafting of police legislation are not occurring in
any state. It is a task conducted in complete secrecy. It seems
the public has no option but to request disclosures invoking section
4 (1) (c) about any documents, file notings, and/or opinions relating
to new police bills in their state. As proactive disclosure information
is meant to be widely published for free by the government, no
specific application needs to be made and no application fee paid.
Since it is not treated as an application, there is no 30-day
wait to get the information. The information must be given immediately.
Communities are
the main beneficiaries of good policing and the main victims of
bad policing – community participation in the process of
drafting new police laws is essential if the police are going
to be efficient, effective and accountable. Members of the public
will have to resort to the use of the Right To Information Act
to find out something they have a right to know and something
that public authorities are obliged by law to publicise proactively.
Right
to Secrecy or Right to Information?
In
2007 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative wrote to the Public
Information Officers of the Home Departments of seven states/territories
requesting information on the police reform processes initiated
by the state government, including details about any activities
related to drafting new police laws under Section 4(1)(c)
of the RTI Act.
Two
states rejected the request initially. Arunachal Pradesh
supplied the information after we appealed the decision.
In Orissa, we appealed the decision that rejected the information
request. The first appellate authority also rejected the
request so we have filed a second appeal. Madhya Pradesh,
Karnataka, and Maharashtra did not bother to reply to the
letter.
Tamil
Nadu’s response maintained that all their actions
are “as per government procedure” without any
elaboration of what that procedure might be, thus making
a mockery of the RTI Act; whilst Goa responded by stating
they have forwarded the request to the Police Headquarters.
No response has been received as yet from Goa Police.
The
Public Information Officer, Home Department, Assam stated
that he did not understand the request and asked that another
application be made!
The
most common response to these requests has been a refusal
on the basis that no application fee accompanied the request
(despite our stating that Section 4 requests do not attract
a fee as per the Act). Further, the information request
was rejected on the grounds that the request had not been
made on the prescribed form. Again, the Act does not preclude
information from being given because requests are not made
on a prescribed form.
Whether
these information requests are being refused out of ignorance
about the provisions of the RTI Act or whether the reason
for the refusal is indicative of a culture of secrecy rather
than transparency, the result is still a stark deviation
from the principle of participatory governance upon which
the act is grounded.
|