POLICE REFORMS

In our last Journal, we had informed the readers about our Writ Petition in the matter of Police Reforms filed in the Supreme Court of India, and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court. The apex Court had desired that its directions issued on 22.9.2006 should be implemented by 31.12.2006. However, some of the States approached the Court for modification of its directions due to certain constraints. The Hon'ble Court has declined to modify its directions. The latest Order of the Hon'ble Court leaves no other option before the States than to reform the Police. The Order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 11.01.2007 is reproduced below:

ORDER

Urgent need to usher in police reforms has been receiving attention of all concerned Governments, authorities and bodies for about three decades. Various Commissions and Committees were set up which gave their reports. As far back as in November, 1977, the Government of India had appointed National Police Commission which gave reports in number of volumes after examining the matter from various angles for nearly four years. A petition filed in this Court ultimately resulted in issue of directions by judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2006, in Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006 ( 8 ) S.S.C.1), The judgment refers to the reports of the National Police Commission and other committees. It, inter alia, notices that the commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law. In fact, none disputed then or now the need to introduce the police reforms. It also cannot be seriously questioned that these reforms have to be introduced very expeditiously now. The judgment further notices that the supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status or position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. It's role has to be defined so that, in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, rule of law becomes a casualty, guilty police officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.

The directions in the judgement were issue after hearing, besides counsel for the petitioners, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel representing National Human Rights Commission, Ms. Swati Meta, learned counsel appearing for Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives. It is pertinent to note that notice of the petition was given to all the State Governments/ Union Territories. When the arguments were heard, none of the State Governments/ Union Territories made any submission or suggestion that the suggestions given in the reports either by the National Human Rights Commission or in Rebeiro Committee or Sorabjee Committee or in the Police Commission be not accepted. Same position was taken by the learned Solicitor General who appeared for the Government of India in the matter. Reference has also been made to a letter that was sent by a Union Home Minister in the year 1997 to the State Governments revealing a distressing situation and expressing the views that, if rule of law has to prevail, the situation must be cured.

After perusing various reports, directions were issued to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance thereof on or before 31st December, 2006, so that the bodies directed to be constituted become operational on the on-set of the new year. The top bureaucrats in the Central Government/State Governments/ Union Territories were directed to file affidavits of compliance by 3rd January, 2007. Considering that every one concerned realizes the need of expeditious introduction of police reforms, we were fairly hopeful that three months' time was sufficient to comply with the directions issued on 22nd September, 2006. Some of the State Governments have complied with some directions but none, except State of Sikkim, has complied with all the directions. We have heard Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned counsel for the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for National Capital Territory of Delhi, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. B. B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and other counsel appearing for some other States, like Nagaland. We have also heard submissions made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Swati Mehta, learned counsel.

Though directions ought to have been complied within the time frame already granted but now prayer has been made for grant of further time. At the outset, we wish to make it clear that by indirect method or in the garb of filing affidavits or I.A. No.16 filed by the State of Jharkhand and other applications filed by other States seeking modification, we cannot permit review of our judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2006. There is a proper procedure for seeking review on permissible grounds only. In this connection, it becomes important to again note that the matter was heard for number of days and practically no State Government/ Union Territories objected to the suggestions contained in various reports. In this view, we would only consider the prayer for grant of further time to comply with such of the directions for which steps may have to be taken by the Central Government/ State Governments/ Union Territories.

Direction No. 2 relates to the selection and minimum tenure of the Director General of Police; Direction No. 3 relates to the minimum tenure of the Inspector General of Police and other officers; and Direction No. 5 by itself provides for the composition of the Police Establishment Board. In so far as these three directions are concerned, they are self-executory and no question of grant of further time, therefore, arises. Whatever steps have to be taken should be taken forthwith and, in any case, not later than four weeks from today.

In regard to Direction No.1 relating to the State Security Commission, Direction No.4 in relation to separation of investigating from law and order and Direction No.6 in relation to Police Complaints Authority, having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the State Governments, we extend the time for compliance till 31st March, 2007. If any State Government has constituted any Commission or Authority, which is not in conformity with the direction of this Court within the extended time, it will constitute such a Commission or Authority in terms of the directions of this Court.

With regard to the National Security Commission, we have perused the Notification dated 2nd January, 2007. It is strictly not in accordance with the directions given by this Court. To constitute a State Commission in terms of our direction, further time up to 31st March, 2007, is granted to the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid orders, the time is, accordingly, allowed and in so far as the other reliefs are concerned, the applications dismissed since we have already noted that review of a judgment cannot be ordered in the garb of modification of the order. We direct the same officers, as mentioned in paragraph (31) of the judgment dated 22nd September, 2006, to file the requisite affidavits of compliance by 10th April, 2007.

We may, however, state that the elections have been ordered in any State would not be ground not to comply with the directions in the time-frame in this order.

 

( V. P. Tyagi )

Assistant Registrar

  • Under the Rules & Regulations of COMMON CAUSE as amended by the Governing Council on March 8, 2007, membership of the Society is open to individuals, irrespective of caste, creed or community. Organisations, which were members of the Society as on March 8, 2007, shall henceforth be Honorary members without voting rights.

  • Membership fee for Individual members (with voting rights) is Rs.500/- for one year and Rs.2,500/- for life. Associate members (without voting rights) will pay Rs.100/- for one year and Rs.500/- for life. Annual membership fee for Honorary members will be Rs.200/-.

  • Applications for membership are to be sent in the prescribed Form to COMMON CAUSE, Common Cause House, 5, Institutional Area, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. The form can be downloaded from the Society's website www.commoncauseindia.org The prescribed membership fee is to be remitted by money order/demand draft/crossed cheque issued on a Bank branch in Delhi, in favour of COMMON CAUSE.

  • The journal is priced at Rs.1/- for members and the subscription is included in the membership fee. The journal is also available to non-members at an annual subscription of Rs.110/-, inclusive of postage. The retail price of the journal is Rs.30/- for a single issue.

  • We are in the process of compiling a database on our life members. We appeal to the Life members to furnish their personal data in line with the format for new members. Their feedback on the journal and suggestions for further improvement will be most welcome. In case a Life member is no longer with us, the next of kin may please communicate his/her date of death to us to enable us to update our records.

  • We receive numerous letters. Replies are invariably sent. Normally, our receipt is about 20/30 letters every day. Kindly write only when you must. We are not equipped to deal with letters written in regional languages.

  • Renewal of the exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act for donations to COMMON CAUSE is awaited. Your donations, and those of your friends, will be most welcome indeed.

April - June 2007