The document discusses the need for police reforms in India and provides an overview of the key issues, recommendations from past committees, and the directives issued by the Supreme Court in 2006. Some of the main problems outlined are political interference in policing, lack of training and resources, and slow implementation of reforms at the state level. It notes that while many committees have recommended reforms, real change has not occurred due to states being unwilling to reduce their control over police forces.

1. AN INITIATIVE OF SHIVNANDANI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD AND JAGDAMB JANAKI NAWAL JANAKI
SOCIETY
Police Reform
CompiledbyCol Mukteshwar Prasad(Retd), MTech,CE(I),FIE(I),FIETE,FISLE,FInstOD,AMCSI
Contact -9007224278, e-mail –muktesh_prasad@yahoo.co.in
for book ”DecodingServicesSelectionBoard” and SSB guidance and training at Shivnandani Edu and
Defence Academy
6/9/2015

2. Police Reforms in India : Much needed reform
The very fact that the present system of policing is governed by Centuries' old "Police Act of
1861" which is still in force, gives a clear idea about the necessity of police reforms in India.
Even after terriorist attack, multi-crore scams and internal security threats like Naxalism,
political class is less willing to loosen its grip on police & are not letting them do their job
thereby further accentuating the problem of “RED TAPISM” in India. They are in total
subordination to ruling party and most of the times themselves are involved in the crime.
GROUND SITUATION :
 EveryCircle or SubInspectorischosenafterconsiderationof local MLA’schoice.
 Caste & “flexibility”of the concernedpolicealsodeterminesposting.
 At the State level,promotion isofferedtothose whocan“serve”to rulingparty.
POPULATIONS VS. POLICE – GLOBAL TREND
Global average ratio of police-population is 270 per one lakh. In India it is 120 per one lakh.
With so less police, ill-trained, ill-equipped and most of them trying to save politicians, people of
India are really vulnerable.
AREAS WHERE REFORMS REQUIRED :
 Beef upsecurityapparatus
 strengthenthe intelligence gatheringability
 bringabout coherence andcoordinationbetweendifferentpolice andsecurityagencies
 modernizingthe police force,
 enablingourcitieswithinfrastructure todeterterroristattacks
 mostimportantlymakingpolice peoplefriendly
REASONS FOR SLOW REFORMS
 “Police”asa subjectcomes underStateList.
 Most of the statesare still followingthe 1861 police actwithsome minorchanges.
COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
Many commissions and committees have been constituted on police reforms till now. Prominent
among them are as follows:
Gore Committee on Police Training
RECOMMENDATIONS:
 impartnecessary knowledge andskills
 create the right attitude

3.  generate effectivedecisionmakingability
 stimulate critical andinnovative thinking
The National Police Commission (1979)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
 POLICETRAINING:Currentpolice trainingisunsatisfactoryinterms of quality&quantity.Should
be improved.
 TRAININGCONCEPTSANDOBJECTIVES: The objectivesof the trainingof police officersshouldbe
the inculcation of knowledgeand professionalskills and the developmentof attitudes
appropriate totheirwork& the people theycome intocontactwith.Police trainingshould,in
addition,be giventhe necessary biasforscienceand technology.
 RECRUITMENT: The nature of police workcallsforpersonsof exceptional ability,intelligence
and alertnessandahighlevel of physical courage andstamina.Theyshouldalsobe honestand
impartial andmenof character.
The Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms
RECOMMENDATIONS:
 A SecurityCommission shouldbe set-upineachState consistingof the Ministerincharge of
Police asthe Chairman,the Leaderof the Opposition,the Chief Secretaryof the State,asitting
or retiredjudge nominatedbythe Chief Justiceof the State'sHighCourtand three othernon-
political citizensof provenmeritandintegrityasmembers.The name of the Commissionshould
be "The Police Performanceand Accountability Commission."(PPAC).
 Besidesthe Commission,aDistrict Police ComplaintsAuthority will be setupineachPolice
Districtas a non statutory body toexamine complaintsfromthe publicof police excesses,
arbitraryarrests anddetention,falseimplicationsincriminalcases,custodial violence,etcandto
make appropriate recommendationstothe Police Performance andAccountabilityCommission,
as well asto the Governmentandto the State or National HumanRightsCommission.
 In everyState,aPolice EstablishmentBoard shouldbe constitutedwiththe DGPandhisfour
senior-mostofficers,borne onthe IPScadre of the State but whoare immediatelyjuniortothe
DGP, as memberstomonitorall transfers,promotions,rewardsandpunishmentsaswell as
otherservice relatedissues.
Soli Sorabjee Committee or Police Act Drafting Committee :
Drafted a new model police bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act & gave a model police
act in 2006.
Supreme Court (SC) Case Related to Police Reforms : Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India
SC under Article 142 of the Constitution (Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice)
empowered it to issue directives regarding a radical overhaul of the Police Act, 1861. Directives
were two pronged:

4. a. To grant immunity to the police from Executive & politicians
b. To divest the Act of all its colonial vestiges and transform its focus from “rule” to
“governance”.
SC gave 7 binding directives which were meant to be implemented immediately via legislation
or executive order. But states are unwilling to do so :
Directive One : Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to
i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the
police
ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and
iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police
Directive two :Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and
secure a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Three : Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including
Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers incharge of a police
station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Four : Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police
Directive Five : Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings,
promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Directive Six : Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public
complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in
cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody
and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct
Directive Seven: Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a
panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organizations (CPO) with a
minimum tenure of two years.
COMPLIANCE WATCHDOG: THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
 A 3 memberMonitoring Committee wasappointedinMay2008 to lookintothe implementation
of the Court’sdirectivesby the Governments.
 Members:Headedby Justice K.T.Thomas- aretiredjudge of the Supreme Court, Mr.Kamal
Kumar(aretiredIPSofficer) andMr. Dharmendra Sharma (JointSecretaryof Police
Modernisation.)

5. As it was not possible to visit every state they only visited 4 states to make report namely:-
Maharashtra (West Zone), Uttar Pradesh (North Zone), Karnataka (South Zone) and West
Bengal (East Zone) as they were populous & defaulters according to committee. Five reports
were submitted to SC based on these which clearly indicated lack of compliance following which
court issued notices to the four states.
NEW POLICE LEGISLATION
 In 2005, the Ministryof Home Affairsconstitutedthe PoliceActDrafting Committee (PADC) to
draft a Model Police Bill forIndia.
 The PADC submitteditsdraftModel Police Bill,2006 to the Home Ministry(afterthe SC
judgment). Itcomplementsthe directionsof SC& helpstoimplementthe same effectively.
 It was hopedthatstateswouldenacttheirownpolice legislationaccordingtoModel Police Bill
& SC Directives;butitneverhappened.
PUBLIC INPUT INTO LEGISLATIVE REFORM
 Only11 stateshave enactedfreshPolice Actstoreplace the oldlegislation.Six stateshave
completedthe draftingof newpolicelegislationsortabledbillsinthe assembly.Twostatesare
currentlyinthe processof drafting.
 Communitiesare the mainbeneficiaries&mainvictimsof police reforms.But,Interestingly,
noneof the bills of the statestookaccountof transparency &publicaccountability norinvolved
public in making legislation exceptKerala. Keralaappointed10membersSelectCommittee&
visitedeachdistricttotake publicfeedbackforthe bill.
 Followingthingsshouldbe done forpublicparticipation:
a. Invitingpublicandcivil societyparticipationindraftingcommittees
b. Invitingpublicsubmissionsonthe type of police service communitieswouldwant
c. Invitinginputfrompolice atall levelsaboutthe type of service theywanttobe part of
d. Ensuringthatdraft that go before the state assembliesandParliamentisinthe publicdomain
and made available forcommentunderproactivedisclosure provisionsinsection4(1)(c) of the
Rightto InformationAct.
REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF STATES
 Statesare sayingthatthiswill leadto“juristocracy”i.e.increasedinfluence of Judiciaryinthe
matterof legislation.
 Constitutionalscheme of “separationof power”wasdestroyedasall powerswere integrated&
assumedbySC.
 State of Maharashtra & UP are sayingthat inPrakash Singhcase,the SC had issued
“recommendations”andnot“directions”&had takenhelpof followingpleas:
1. Under Articles 154 & 163, the Executive power of the State is vested in the Governor who
shall act in accordance with the aid and advice of the council of ministers or the cabinet.
2. Under Article 163 (3), they said that the Court has no power to question how such advice has
been tendered. Emphasis was laid on “shall” (which in law means mandatory in contrast with
“may”, which means voluntary