20 Years of Prakash Singh Verdict
Why Is It a Building Block for Better Things?
Prakash Singh Vs Union of India is among India’s most legendary judgments. It created quite a stir, and some euphoria, when it came in 2006. It was justifiably celebrated as the police reforms judgment. But optimism gradually gave way to cynicism when it was honoured more in the breach than in observance. The implementation by the states met with reluctance, defiance or half-hearted compliance.
Today, the milestone judgment stands as a bleak reflection on India’s polity and governance. The longrunning saga—from the filing of the PIL in 1996 to the judgment in 2006, to its botched implementation today—testifies why, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and why we must all be worried and alarmed. We, at Common Cause, believe that the citizens deserve better in the world’s largest democracy and an emerging economic powerhouse. It reminds us that a systemic change would require more than a court order, perhaps a relentless fight at many levels.
But before we come to the nitty-gritties, let us recount what is so consequential in the judgment. First and foremost, it sought to make the police accountable to the Constitution. It highlighted that the police’s commitment, devotion, and accountability must be solely to the rule of law and not to the rulers of the day. The order removed arbitrariness from key functions and bolstered investigation. It made the key appointments rule-based, tenured and multi-partisan, and provided for a police complaints authority at the state and district levels.
In the following pages, you will read more about the Apex Court’s landmark directives and their compliance. The idea is to make sense of the big picture of what is lost and found, what must be nonnegotiable, and what can still be salvaged through advocacy, public pressure and good sense. We have also tried to weave in global comparisons and India’s own best practices.
The fight for police reforms is not just against government apathy and obstinacy, it is also against the cynicism of key stakeholders, particularly activists, politicians and former top cops. For instance, the activists feel that the verdict focused on shielding the police from politicians, and not on making them accountable to the law. The politicians feel that it undermines federalism and dilutes their power to hire and fire the police leadership. The police officers feel that it has complicated postings and promotions, and undermined the powers of the DGPs.
While the reasons may be valid, they do not merit pessimism. For instance, shielding police from political interference is a step towards police autonomy, a precondition for professionalism and accountability. The check on the unfettered executive powers balances the choice of incumbents against their eligibility and suitability. Nothing stops the stakeholders from improving things further and rooting for more systemic reforms.
We believe that police reforms must be treated as a continuous process. And that is why Prakash Singh must be seen not as another verdict but as a building block for better things to come. Proper police reforms in a democracy need a citizen-oriented ecosystem, with witness and whistleblower protection, grievance redressal, adherence to the conflict-of-interest principle and strengthening the RTI law. But before that, the 2006 verdict must be implemented in letter and spirit. It is long overdue.
As always, your feedback is awaited at contact@commoncause.in
Vipul Mudgal
Editor
NEXT »
