Debating Police Reforms

Debating Police Reforms
*Saumitra Mohan

The debate over police reforms continues to rage. Sleeves have been folded and swords have been pulled for a one-to-one duel on either side of the fence and there are some straight on the fence, still undecided as to which side should they join. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also made it clear that it is not going to compromise on its directions the basics whereof must be implemented within the stipulated time-frame.

While it is no one’s case that there should not be any reforms of the police organization at all, crucial as it is to the internal security of the country as well as to the administration of the criminal justice system, as also acknowledged by the various police commissions (both national and state ones), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and Justice Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reform. So, it is more in the fitness of things that the ongoing debate on police reforms, as presently pitched, should not only be well informed but should also be sensitive to the various concerns and issues as have been raised by the various parties involved.

The main ingredients of the proposed police reforms, as also recommended by the Supreme Court, include constitution of a Police Establishment Board to consider such issues as relating to the transfer and posting of the key police officials, a State Security Commission to be headed by the Chief Minister or the Home Minister of the state to not only act as a think tank on issues relating to policing and internal security but also to cushion the police against unwarranted interference, a Police Complaints Board at the district and state levels to be headed by a retired or a sitting judge to consider various complaints against the police and a stipulated tenure for the key police officials, again to allow them to function independently, without any fear of transfer and without any political interference.

While we all acknowledge that there, indeed, should be police reforms because of the way it has been functioning so far, the fact remains that the popular perception of the police is very negative. The police, as it functions now, is perceived as unresponsive, obtrusive, callous, corrupt, inefficient and ineffective notwithstanding the multifarious constraints and odds against which our police is pitted namely a rickety infrastructure, shortage of manpower, lack of necessary financial and other resources, lack of adequate training, unremunerative compensation and, most importantly, excessive political interference. So, there definitely is more than a case for not only reforming the police organization to cushion it against various ominous and insidious influences of the political power play, but also to make its functioning more transparent, responsive, sensitized, effective and independent, simultaneously equipping it with all the requisite infrastructure, resources and manpower.

But even though accepting the need for the police reforms, there have been clear voices of dissent from those corners which are liable to lose power and control over the police as a result of the proposed reforms. These voices have been those of the political and permanent executive. They feel that the reforms, as proposed, need more threadbare discussion and debate than plunging headlong into its implementation without minding the implications thereof but the judiciary has dug its heels in terming such suggestions and arguments as dilatory tactics.

Even while believing that many of these fears are baseless, one does feel that the supervisory control of the magistracy over the police should not be weakened any further. Keeping in mind the Actonion (of Lord Acton) dictum of ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, we should be careful that while guaranteeing absolute independence to police, it should not be allowed to become an empire in itself, unamenable to any supervisory control. While there are provisions of a Complaints Board, such a structure has always been found to be too formal in its operation. Ergo, there is definitely a need to revive the supervisory powers of the Executive Magistrate over the police, as also envisaged in the Police Rules but fallen in disuse. The Executive Magistrate in the field is the grass-root officer who is more easily accessible to the people and has a much more people-friendly face than the police. So, such age old practices as thana inspection and some say in performance evaluation by the Magistrate should be revived and further strengthened.

While one appreciates the fears expressed by all the sides, one also feels that one should, indeed, not rush through something as vital as police reforms and all related aspects ought to be thoroughly discussed before being implemented. Alternatively, the police reforms, as proposed, can be implemented, on a pilot basis, in one or two states (which have already consented to such reforms) while simultaneously continuing with an informed discussion and debate over police reforms. The learnings from the ‘pilot states’ can later be factored to further fine-tune these reforms. But police reforms are definitely something that require more than dilettantism and amateurish attention.
*Saumitra Mohan is an IAS officer presently working as an Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly in West Bengal.
(The views expressed here are author’s personal views and does not reflect those of the Government.)
Address for correspondence:
Saumitra Mohan, IAS, Additional District Magistrate, Office of the District Magistrate, Hooghly-712101.
E-mail: saumitra_mohan@hotmail.com.
Phone: 033-26806456/26802043(O)/26802041(R).
Fax: 033-26802043.
Mobile: 91-9831388803/9434242283.