Police Complaints Authority

*Mohd Aasif

September 2026 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Prakash Singh Judgment. It was a battle that lingered for ten years in the Supreme Court (SC) for improving and modernising the Indian Police to fulfil the emerging needs of the world’s largest democracy. The Apex Court laid out seven directives, which have been discussed in the earlier write-ups of this issue. One of them was to establish Police Complaint Authorities (PCAs) in all States.

It is well-established that most police personnel retain prejudices inherited from their society. The Status of Policing in India Report (2025) on ‘Police Torture and (Un)Accountability’ corroborates that their actions could be driven by their biases against minorities, Dalits, tribals and other vulnerable sections. More than a third of all police personnel surveyed in the report believe that these sections of people are naturally prone to committing crimes. A PCA thus becomes important in making the police responsible and accountable so that they conduct their operations within democratic and constitutional boundaries.

However, the idea of a PCA is largely confined to the statutes. Most of the States have not implemented it in the letter and spirit of the SC judgment. A study by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), collected data through RTI applications and published the findings in 2023. In this article, we will discuss the salient features of the study to understand the extent to which the PCAs have succeeded in India.

Composition and Selection

As per SC’s directives, the PCAs should comprise 3-5 members and be headed by a chairperson at both the State and the district levels. The chairperson must be a retired SC or HC judge for State PCAs (SPCAs) and a retired District Judge for District PCAs (DPCAs). A panel of names for the bodies must be proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge nominated by him/her.

Investigation Jurisdiction

The mandate allows SPCAs to inquire into complaints against officers of the rank of SP and above, whereas the DPCAs can inquire into complaints against officers of the rank of DSP and below. The PCAs can investigate only allegations of serious misconduct, such as allegations and incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. In the case of DPCAs, it expands to the allegations of extortion, land/ house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The mandate was expanded further to include other forms of abuse and misconduct after the Model Police Bill 2015 was prepared. The improved mandates expanded the jurisdiction of death or grievous hurt other than in police custody and added molestation or any other offence against a woman during the investigation.

It is well-established that most police personnel retain prejudices inherited from their society. The Status of Policing in India Report (2025) on ‘Police Torture and (Un)Accountability’ corroborates that their actions could be driven by their biases against minorities, Dalits, tribals and other vulnerable sections.

Implementation Across the States

As per the CHRI report, only 26 States have the legal and policy framework that requires to constitute police complaints authorities and only 17 out of 26 have PCAs at both the State and district levels. While 17 States have done so by introducing new police legislations or by amending existing laws, nine States have relied on executive orders. The CHRI report finds some of the glaring issues in the functioning of the police complaint authorities. The SPCAs have suffered prolonged vacancies and delayed appointments.

The Main Findings of the CHRI Report¹

The CHRI report, prepared by Aditi Pradhan and Devyani Srivastava and edited by Venkatesh Nayak, concludes that the PCAs are yet to have any measurable impact on police accountability. It says the State governments have shown little or no will to establish authorities that are equipped to function impartially and effectively. Long periods of vacancies, delayed appointments and dominance of the political executive are also common.

It is disconcerting that the States where SPCAs have been able to function with some semblance of independence, governments are taking measures to curtail their powers. SPCAs have been reluctant to take suo motu cognisance of reported police misconduct or ensure timely completion of inquiries, calling into question their relevance and credibility.

An edited summary of the main findings is as follows:

• PCAs are operational in less than half the States. Since the SC directive in 2006, only 26 States (except UP and Bihar), and six UTs (except J&K and Ladakh), have put in place a legal and/or a policy framework for setting up SPCAs. Out of these, only 11 PCAs are operational on the ground, while three are yet to become fully operational.
• At least nine States/UTs have serving government or police officials as members of PCAs, which is in direct violation of the SC directive.
• Only two SPCAs—in Rajasthan and Delhi--have civil society representation despite the requirement to include at least 3-5 independent members, including from civil society. But in Rajasthan, the civil society members are known to have political affiliations.
• In several States, the mandate of the SPCAs has been diluted or narrowly defined. The State police laws, under which PCAs are established, have diluted the definition of ‘serious misconduct’—by excluding serious charges like arrest or detention without due process, forceful deprivation of rightful property, blackmail or extortion, etc—thereby limiting the jurisdictional powers of the PCAs in checking police illegalities.
• Delays in appointments and long periods of vacancies, particularly of the Chairperson’s post, are common across States. Only four PCAs—in Assam, Kerala, Tripura and Uttarakhand—have been active since 2008 and have had regular appointments. SPCAs in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Rajasthan were constituted as recently as 2023.
• Only half of the operational SPCAs have adopted Rules of Procedures to govern their functioning. Many States are yet to develop and/or publish their rules.
• A high number of public complaints received against police personnel testify that the PCAs have 24 | January-March, 2026 COMMON CAUSE | Vol. XLV No. 1 become a forum people feel comfortable to approach. Delhi PCA has received the highest number of complaints (over 2,000 per year) while Maharashtra and Kerala are distant second with an average of 600-700 per year from 2018 and 2022.
• A small percentage of complaints are admitted for inquiry by the Authorities. While Gujarat accepted less than 2 per cent (just 68 out of 3,502), Maharashtra admitted less than a quarter (1,102 of the 4,515). During the same period, Kerala accepted only 45 per cent of the total complaints for inquiry.
• Limited use of suo motu powers to initiate inquiries into reported instances of police misconduct have restricted PCAs to rely only on public complaints. Assam and Maharashtra are the only Authorities to have initiated suo motu inquiries.
• There are very few referrals by State institutions. Assam, Maharashtra and Haryana are the only States to report on complaints referred to SPCAs from other authorities in the State.
• Where information with classification is available (Assam, Haryana, Tripura), the largest number of complaints belonged to the category of “police inaction” and “non-registration of FIR”.
• High case pendency and inquiries lasting several years are a common occurrence, despite a declining number of complaints in several SPCAs. Between 2018 and 2022, the pendency rate went up from less than 1 per cent in 2018 to 54 per cent in Maharashtra and from 2 per cent to 45 per cent in Kerala.
• The PCAs recommended action against police personnel in very few complaints. Despite receiving thousands of public complaints, Delhi has recommended departmental action in just 17 cases thus far. Assam SPCA recommended action in 46 cases in 2018, 15 in 2019, just two in 2021, and none in 2022.
• A major gap in the accountability process remains the poor response from the State Government as well as the State police leadership in terms of acting on the Authorities’ recommendations.
• The SPCAs are mostly utilising their sanctioned budgets. However, their funds are mainly allocated for salaries/wages/allowances and other office expenditure.
• Only a few SPCAs publish annual reports. Assam, Delhi, Karnataka, Tripura and Uttarakhand Authorities stand out for preparing and publishing annual reports.
• Separate investigation cell is constituted in very few SPCAs (Assam and Tripura the only exceptions). Having a dedicated team of investigators is crucial to prevent the PCAs’ dependence on the police departments to conduct inquiries.

Implications and Recommendations

(18) The limitations, challenges as well as the potential of PCAs highlighted in this report throw up several policy implications- -that dedicated and localised police oversight bodies, such as the PCAs, are needed as is evident by the number of complaints the operational authorities have been receiving. But PCAs at present are not serving the purpose. Their structure, mandate and powers need to be enhanced if they are to emerge as an effective remedy for police misconduct and wrongdoings.

Edited excerpts of the CHRI’s recommendations are as follows:

Given the difficulties in holding the police to account for misconduct, the role and mandate of the SPCAs needs to be strengthened in line with the Model Police Bill 2015.

For State Governments

19. Establish PCAs at the State, divisional and/or district level.

20. Adopt the standards and criteria for membership laid down in the Model Police Bill, 2015, to reflect a balanced composition while establishing and/or strengthening existing PCAs.

21. Provide an investigation wing to the SPCAs to assist in conducting inquiries in an impartial manner and without extraneous pressure from the executive and put an end to the practice of the police department itself conducting enquiries.

SPCAs must specify a clear timeframe for completing inquiries, preferably no later than 90 days from the receipt of complaint, as specified in the Model Police Bill, 2015.

22. Existing vacancies must be filled without delay. The absence of chairperson/members restricts PCAs’ functioning; while they continue receiving complaints, no action of consequence is taken, thus increasing pendency and future workload.

23. Given the difficulties in holding the police to account for misconduct, SPCAs’ role and mandate needs to be strengthened in line with the Model Police Bill 2015. In addition to inquiring into serious misconduct, SPCAs should be empowered to take suo motu notice of police misconduct; monitor the progress of departmental inquiries and/or criminal investigation on complaints of misconduct; inspect any police station, or any other place of detention used by the police; advise the Government on measures to ensure protection of witnesses, victims and families and recommend payment of monetary compensation to victims of alleged misconduct.

24. Where SPCAs’ inquiries establish police misconduct, their recommendations of initiating a departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings by registering an FIR against the concerned officials must be made binding on the State police department.

25. All PCAs must be encouraged to prepare detailed annual reports with information on the Authorities’ functioning as well as the volume, type and status of complaints received and the manner of their disposal. The State governments must table them in the State Legislature.

26. Where SPCAs have been operational for more than five years, a performance and compliance audit is necessary to evaluate their activities and budget. The findings can help identify ways in which the Authorities can better meet their objectives.

For Police Complaints Authorities

27. All SPCAs must develop rules of procedure to govern their and DPCAs’ functioning within the State. In formulating rules of procedure, States must ensure the rights of the complainant as listed in the Model Police Bill, 2015, are protected.

28. SPCAs must specify a clear timeframe for completing inquiries, preferably no later than 90 days from the receipt of complaint, as specified in the Model Police Bill, 2015. States must further consider that any complaint concerning the life or liberty of any person shall be attended to immediately, and within 24 hours of the receipt of the complaint.

29. To inspire public confidence, each SPCA must maintain an updated website that provides clear information in English and the official language(s) of the State about the Authority’s functions, Chairperson, Members, contact details and procedure for filing complaints.

For the Police Department

30. Prioritise action on PCAs’ recommendations, including ensuring timely departmental inquiries against the personnel concerned, providing regular updates on action taken to the PCAs, reviewing patterns of misconduct and strengthening departmental processes, procedures and training for all personnel.

31. Ensure that up-to-date information about the SPCAs and DPCAs is made available in English and in the official language(s) of the State; publicise it through social media and the State police websites and disseminate through State institutions such as the Human Rights Commissions and the State/ District Legal Services Authorities.

For Civil Society

32. Encourage the use of the PCAs whenever necessary to bring to light police misconduct and push for accountability

33. Spread awareness about the role, mandate and functioning of the Authority and support victims in filing complaints.

34. Raise with the State Governments the issue of timely appointments to the Authorities in line with SC directive and prevent attempts at limiting their mandate.

35. Facilitate cross learning and sharing of practices that demonstrate the ability and intent of the Authorities in pushing for accountability.

Conclusion

The primary objective of establishing PCAs was to enhance the accountability of the police. However, the CHRI Report 2023 raises doubts about the will of the State governments and police officials to implement the SC order. Police accountability is the most important component of police reforms, and the Prakash Singh judgment is an important milestone in that path. Alok Prasanna Kumar, a co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, says these reforms will take “a generation to undertake and implement fully”2 while calling upon all stakeholders to at least make a serious beginning now. It must be remembered that the PCAs are a legal requirement, and their non-implementation is a contempt of the Apex Court.

References

• Pradhan, A., & Srivastava, D. (2023). Police Complaints Authorities In India (V. Nayak, Ed.). Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
• Kumar, A. P. (2016). Who Will Bell the Cop? Police Reforms and Law Enforcement. Economic and Political Weekly, 10-11. https://bit.ly/3OI4qOz

---

NEXT »

The Gap Between Law & Practice Persists