From Intent to Implementation
Beyond Prakash Singh Judgement
*Rishikesh Kumar
He became a father and died the next day. Ajit Mahto, a 22-year-old resident of East Singhbhum district in Jharkhand, died in police custody after being arrested for purchasing a stolen mobile phone from one of his friends for Rs 500. Ajit never returned home to see his new-born child. One need not speculate about what might have happened inside the police station; his story mirrors a pattern that has been documented repeatedly. He appears to have met the same fate as many others who enter custody but never walk out alive.
This is not an isolated incident. A report by People’s Watch, based on documentation from 47 districts across nine states, paints an even more disturbing picture. The organisation estimated that as many as 1.8 million people in India may be subjected to torture every year. More troubling is the pattern they reveal: torture, according to the report, appears to have become an entrenched and often routine strategy of law enforcement. Indian policing has often shown prompt and forceful action in petty offences.
In contemporary India, the exercise of police power has increasingly spilled into the public domain. Homes have been demolished through what is popularly called “bulldozer justice”, and police “encounters” are sometimes celebrated as swift justice delivered outside the courtroom. These practices continue despite constitutional safeguards and judicial guidelines laid down in cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra. What is equally troubling is that many of these actions appear to disproportionately affect vulnerable communities— minorities, the poor, and other marginalised groups—raising deeper concerns about the direction in which policing in India is evolving.
Prakash Singh: Setting the Terms of Police Reform in India
1. Recommendation to Benchmark
For a long time, police reform in India was not a question of what needs to be done—that part was already clear. Multiple commissions had identified the same issues: excessive political control, frequent transfers, weak accountability, and overburdened policing structures. The problem was not a lack of ideas; it was the absence of follow-through. The Prakash Singh judgment changed this in a quiet but important way. It took what had remained at the level of recommendation and turned it into an expectation.
The Court’s directions focused on familiar fault lines:
- limiting day-to-day political interference
- ensuring minimum tenure for key officers
- separating investigation from law-and-order duties
- creating internal systems for postings and promotions
- setting up independent complaint mechanisms
In many parts of the world, policing has gradually shifted from a system driven by control to one built on professionalism, accountability, and public trust. This shift did not happen overnight. It came through institutional reforms
Together, these measures signaled that policing could not continue to function purely on discretion and informal control. There had to be some structure, some predictability.
2. Shifting the Conversation Outward
What followed was equally significant. Police reform was no longer confined to government files or expert committees. The judgment pushed it into the public domain. For the first time, there was a clear reference point that journalists, civil society groups, and even citizens could use to question how policing functioned. Abstract issues like arbitrary transfers or lack of accountability became part of a larger, visible problem.
The judgment also exposed a deeper reality: resistance to reform was due to the political and institutional incentives that benefit from control over the police.
Across Europe and the UK, one principle is clear: the police cannot be the sole judge of their own conduct. This is reflected in the European Code of Police Ethics, which emphasises accountability to the State, citizens, and independent institutions
3. Where Reform Slows Down
If the judgment clarified what needs to change, the following years showed how difficult that change actually is. Most States have, in some form, responded to the directives. On paper, the boxes are largely ticked. But in practice, many of these changes have been adjusted to fit within existing ways of working rather than altering them.
Fixed tenures exist, but are often cut short. Oversight bodies have been created, but without the independence or capacity to make a real difference. The separation between investigation and law-andorder is still limited, especially outside a few urban pockets.
This uneven implementation reflects a deeper hesitation. The reforms, at their core, try to limit discretion and redistribute control, and that is where resistance tends to surface.
4. Why it Still Matters--and What Comes Next
Despite the gaps in implementation, the Prakash Singh judgment continues to hold its relevance. Its significance lies in the fact that it set a standard that cannot easily be ignored. Today, any discussion on police reform almost inevitably refers back to it. It has become a reference point, a way to question existing practices and highlight where systems fall short. It has made it harder to defend the status quo without scrutiny.
The judgment also made one thing clear: reform does not end with laying down structures. It depends on whether those structures are allowed to function in spirit. Autonomy without accountability, or accountability without independence, both fall short of what was intended. Seen this way, Prakash Singh is less a completed reform and more a continuing framework. It set the direction, but the responsibility of carrying it forward lies within State institutions, political leadership, and public pressure.
The task now is to build on it—to ensure that what was proposed as a corrective measure does not remain a formal exercise, but gradually becomes part of how policing is actually practiced.
Can a country aspiring to become Viksit Bharat by 2047 afford a policing system that is often perceived as unaccountable and inadequately trained? Can a force that still struggles with basic investigative capacity keep pace with a world where crime itself has changed its character? Every day, Indians lose crores of rupees to cyber fraud; life savings disappearing through a phone call, a malicious link, or a manipulated digital interface. Yet for many victims, the journey to police station still ends in confusion, procedural delay, or a system that is itself trying to catch up with the speed of technology.
If reform is to move beyond intent, we cannot keep looking at the police in isolation—we have to step back and see how the entire system functions. And at that point, it becomes necessary to look outward, to understand how other countries have addressed these same challenges in practice.
Comparative Policing: What India Can Learn from Global Models
Police reform in India is no longer about identifying problems—the issues are well known. The real challenge lies in making reform work in practice. While India continues to grapple with political interference, weak accountability, and low public trust, several countries that faced similar challenges, responded with tangible changes.
In many parts of the world, policing has gradually shifted from a system driven by control to one built on professionalism, accountability, and public trust. This shift came through institutional reforms— independent oversight bodies, clearer legal safeguards, better training, and stronger engagement with communities.
Take Canada, for instance. Its policing system evolved to balance enforcement with rights, supported by independent review mechanisms and strict procedural safeguards. The focus is not just on maintaining order, but on ensuring that policing remains fair and legally sound.
Similarly, countries like Denmark have strengthened credibility by ensuring that complaints against the police are handled by independent bodies, rather than internally. This reduces bias and builds public confidence in the system.
Japan offers another approach—bringing the police closer to everyday life. Through its neighbourhoodbased system, officers remain visible and accessible, focusing as much on prevention and problem-solving as on enforcement.
These examples show that reform is not about one major change, but about building systems that consistently reinforce accountability and trust.
For India, the framework already exists in the form of the Prakash Singh judgment. What is needed now is movement from intent to implementation. Looking at how other countries have operationalised similar ideas can help bridge this gap and make reform more real, and more effective.
Canada: Getting the Balance Right
Canada’s policing story is interesting because it did not start perfect—it evolved. Over time, the system moved away from a strict ‘catch-the-criminal-at-all-costs’ approach to one that takes rights and procedures seriously. Today, things like proper evidence collection, legal safeguards, and civilian oversight are built into everyday policing.
Independent bodies regularly review police actions. If evidence is collected improperly, it can be rejected in court. This pushes officers to follow the law carefully. At the same time, Canadian policing is not weak. Officers still act firmly when required, but within a clear legal framework.
Another striking feature is how police time is used. A large part of their work involves helping people, resolving disputes, and preventing problems, not just registering crimes. This makes policing feel less like force and more like a service.
Denmark: Trust Built Through Independence
Denmark has taken a very clear position on accountability—the police should not investigate themselves. An independent watchdog body handles complaints against police officers. Whether it is a serious allegation or a routine complaint, the investigation is done outside the police system. This may sound simple, but it makes a huge difference.
Because the process is independent, people are more willing to come forward. And because officers know they are being reviewed externally, there is a natural check on misuse of power. Over time, this has built a system where credibility comes from transparency, not just authority.
Countries like Denmark consistently rank high in global policing indices not just because of low crime, but because people trust the system to be fair.
Japan: Policing That Lives in the Neighbourhood
Japan’s Koban system is often cited as one of the most effective forms of community policing in the world. Across cities and towns, small police posts (called Kobans) are placed within neighbourhoods. Officers don’t just visit these areas—they are part of them. They patrol on foot, know the residents, help with directions, assist in local issues, and step in early when problems arise. Because of this constant presence, people don’t hesitate to approach the police. Trust builds naturally through such daily interaction.
This also changes how crime is handled. Many issues are resolved much before they escalate into serious offences. The focus is on preventing crime through relationships.
The system shows that when policing is local, visible, and approachable, it becomes far more effective.
The European & UK Model: Accountability through Independent Oversight
Across Europe and the UK, one principle is clear: the police cannot be the sole judge of their own conduct. This is reflected in the European Code of Police Ethics which emphasises accountability to the State, citizens, and independent institutions. In practice, this has led to strong external oversight systems. Countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium have set up independent bodies operating outside the police chain of command, with real investigative powers and public reporting. Their functioning reflects standards shaped by the European Court of Human Rights— investigations must be independent, prompt, effective, open to public scrutiny, and involve victims.
In the UK, this approach is reinforced by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which investigates serious cases such as death, injury, or corruption. At the same time, the traditional ‘bobby on the beat’ remains a defining feature—ordinary officers are still not permitted to carry firearms, relying instead on communication, restraint, and public consent, with specialised armed units deployed only when necessary. The result is a system where accountability is built into everyday policing, helping sustain both credibility and public trust.
Taken together, these examples show that reform is not abstract—it is practical and achievable when institutions are allowed to function as intended. In many ways, the Prakash Singh judgment points in this direction; what remains is to carry its ideas from paper to practice.
Any expansion of custody powers must be matched with stronger oversight, stricter compliance, and real accountability, failing which the risk of misuse becomes not just possible, but predictable
The Gap Between Promise and Reality
Nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court had to confront the gap between promise and reality. The Justice Thomas Committee, set up to review implementation, expressed what it called “total dismay” at the “complete indifference” shown by States. Many governments either ignored the directives altogether or passed new Police Acts that appeared compliant on the surface but quietly retained political control through vague provisions and “exigency” clauses.
Even today, the pattern continues. In 2025-26, the Supreme Court has repeatedly pulled up States for appointing “acting” DGPs and delaying the preparation of UPSC panels—clear signs that political interference has not reduced, but adapted. The result is visible: custodial deaths continue, public trust remains fragile, and the larger vision of reform often feels stuck in files rather than reflected on the ground.
The larger issue lies less in the design of the judgment and more in its implementation. The Court provided a clear and workable framework, but its success depended on political will at the State level— something that has often been limited or selective
At the same time, India has introduced a new legal framework— the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). These were meant to modernise criminal justice-bringing in timelines, technology, and greater use of forensics.
Risk of Misuse: The expansion of police custody—extending up to 90 days under Section 187 of the BNSS—raises serious concerns about potential abuse. Given India’s troubling record of custodial violence and coerced confessions, longer detention without robust safeguards can deepen existing vulnerabilities rather than resolve them. The Supreme Court, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, had issued detailed guidelines precisely to curb such excesses and protect detainees from torture and abuse. In this context, any expansion of custody powers must be matched with stronger oversight, stricter compliance, and real accountability, failing which the risk of misuse becomes not just possible, but predictable.
Unequal Impact on Marginalised Groups: The expansion of police powers, if not exercised with fairness and sensitivity, risks falling hardest on those who are already vulnerable. Experience shows that communities at the margins—whether due to poverty, social identity, or lack of access to legal support— often face the sharpest edge of enforcement. Without strong safeguards and accountability, enhanced powers can unintentionally reinforce existing biases, leading to selective targeting and deeper mistrust of the system. In a diverse society like India, the real test of policing is not just efficiency, but whether it treats every citizen with equal dignity and protection under the law.
Other concerns also remain. The expansion of surveillance and data collection raises privacy risks, particularly in light of the safeguards laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Gaps in infrastructure and training could also affect the effective use of forensic tools, while increased police discretion may weaken judicial oversight, a concern reflected in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Moving on Parallel Tracks
But herein lies a growing concern.
While these laws aim to make policing more efficient, they also risk expanding police powers without equally strengthening safeguards. Longer custody periods, wider discretion in investigation and prosecution, and greater procedural control can, if unchecked, deepen the very problems that reforms like Prakash Singh sought to address. In a way, we are moving forward but not always in the right direction. Recognising these risks, the Supreme Court has continued to step in, strengthening safeguards around police functioning.
In cases like Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court made it mandatory for the police to inform arrested persons of the specific grounds of arrest in writing, in a language they understand, and well before they are produced before a magistrate. This reinforced the protections under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, aiming to prevent arbitrary detention.
Similarly, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, the Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and night vision in all police stations and central agencies to curb custodial violence. Yet, even in 2025-26, the Court had to criticise both the Centre and States for delays, non-functional cameras, and lack of proper monitoring, calling it a “blot on the system.”
Taken together, these developments reveal a pattern. Reform in India has often moved in two parallel tracks—one of progressive judicial directions, and another of hesitant or diluted implementation. And this brings us back to where we began.
If the Prakash Singh judgment was about building a better structure, and the new criminal laws are about modernising procedures, the real challenge lies in ensuring that power is matched with accountability, and efficiency does not come at the cost of rights. Because policing today is no longer just about maintaining order. It is about navigating a world of custodial safeguards, digital crime, institutional accountability, and constitutional limits, all at once. And unless these pieces come together, reform will remain well-written, well-intended, but only partially realised.
The Uneven Journey of Prakash Singh Reforms
The Prakash Singh judgment remains a cornerstone of police reform in India—ambitious in vision but uneven in implementation. While it sought to insulate policing from political interference through fixed tenures, independent bodies, and functional separation, most States have complied more in form than in substance. Institutions like State Security Commissions and Police Complaints Authorities often exist without real independence, and practices such as appointing “acting” DGPs or retaining control over transfers continue to dilute the reform’s intent.
Concerns have also been raised about the one-size-fits-all nature of the directives in a federal system where policing challenges vary widely across States. The needs of coastal States, metropolitan regions, and border areas differ significantly, and a uniform framework does not always accommodate these variations. This has often been cited by States as a reason for adapting, rather than fully implementing, the prescribed model.
However, the larger issue lies less in the design of the judgment and more in its implementation. The Court provided a clear and workable framework, but its success depended on political will at the State level. In that sense, Prakash Singh is not so much a failed reform as an incomplete one: a strong starting point that continues to highlight both the possibilities of change and the challenges of carrying it through.
The Way Forward: Crafting a People’s Police
A progressive India deserves a police force that is approachable, compassionate, accountable, and firmly rooted in the rule of law. Moreover, policing cannot be reformed in isolation. It sits within a larger ecosystem, and unless that ecosystem is strengthened, even welldesigned reforms will struggle to deliver.
Police reform cannot remain confined to courtrooms or government files. It must become a public issue. Civil society, media, and citizens need to push for it to feature prominently in political agendas
This means building capacity around the police as much as within it—empowering institutions like the NHRC and Lokayuktas with real authority, ensuring independent and credible medical examinations in custody, strengthening forensic infrastructure, and making sure that new criminal laws such as BNS, BNSS, and BSA reinforce accountability.
At the same time, meaningful change need not wait for large structural overhauls. It can begin immediately on a few practical fronts.
First, reform must start from within. Police leadership can drive internal changes that do not require legislative approval. Police stations should feel accessible; citizens should be confident that their complaints will be heard, FIRs registered without delay, and interactions marked by empathy rather than authority. The shift from coercive methods to scientific investigation is essential.
Second, administrative gaps need urgent attention. The burden on the police force is simply too high to expect consistent professionalism. Filling vacancies, improving mobility and communication systems, investing in housing and welfare, and modernising training are immediate necessities. Rationalising working hours—moving gradually toward an eight-hour shift system—can significantly improve both efficiency and behaviour.
Third, technology must be used more effectively. Platforms like CCTNS and NATGRID already exist but need deeper integration. The use of data analytics and artificial intelligence can improve investigation, deployment, and crime prevention. Specialised units must be strengthened to respond to emerging challenges such as cybercrime, encryption, and digital fraud.
Alongside these steps, one reform stands out for its practicality and impact—the separation of investigation from law-and-order functions in urban areas. This was one of the clearest directions under Prakash Singh, and also one of the most feasible to implement. It requires limited additional resources but can significantly improve the quality of investigation and outcomes in the criminal justice system.
What global experience shows is that these are not abstract ideas. Countries that have improved policing have done so through exactly these kinds of steps—independent oversight (as seen in Denmark), community-oriented policing (as in Japan), professional and rights-based investigation (as in Canada), and strong anti-corruption systems (as in Singapore and Hong Kong).
Ultimately, police reform cannot remain confined to courtrooms or government files. It must become a public issue. Civil society, media, and citizens need to push for it to feature prominently in political agendas. Without public demand, reform risks remaining partial and reversible.
The story of police reform in India is still unfolding. Prakash Singh was a critical beginning—it provided direction and clarity. But the next phase requires political will, institutional coordination, and public ownership.
If internal reform, administrative support, technological capacity, and external accountability move together, India can move toward a system that is effective, fair and trusted.
In that sense, going beyond Prakash Singh judgement means building on it and turning a judicial framework into a lived reality.
NEXT »
