news details |
|
|
| Will government defy cynics, make good on police reform? | | |
The police belongs to the people in power. That is the reality. But a recent Supreme Court judgement could change all this. Ten years after the need for reform was first brought to the court’s attention in a PIL case, the Supreme Court took the decisive step of instructing the central and state governments to kick-start police reform in the judgment delivered on September 22. Too wise to leave it all to the executive, the court has set out seven directives as well as a timeline for compliance. By January 3, 2007 the court wants to know what governments have done to change the police to an essential service the people of India can depend upon to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values, rather than violate them at every turn.
The directives go right to the heart of the matter — to create a regime where operational autonomy goes hand in hand with accountability without taking away the overall responsibility of the state to ensure the safety and security of its people through policing that acts according to the law. The directives mandate governments to fix tenures for particular ranks; set up security commissions to act as buffers between the police and executive; appoint the director general of police from among candidates chosen by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of objective criteria; and bring crucial internal matters such as transfers, postings and promotions strictly within police control. The accountability components — both for conduct and performance — require government to create dedicated agencies to deal with public complaints against the police and empower security commissions to regularly evaluate police performance. This regime ensures that the executive is charged with laying down broad policing policy and exercises oversight over the service; while the chief of police will have clear authority and command over his/her department. This way, all legal relationships remain intact, but are conditioned and defined. And the new mechanisms assure a workable system of checks and balances.
The police will no longer be able to use the habitual excuse of political interference, but will have to put their house in order and provide the service that is so lacking today. The world over, police autonomy and accountability go hand in hand. The two principles must be thought of as two sides of the same coin: police autonomy must be tempered by robust accountability, and accountability can only be robust if the police are not able to pass the buck for misconduct or poor performance. The idea that greater autonomy implies greater authority is a misconception. Greater autonomy is welcome only if accompanied by strong mechanisms to hold the police accountable.
A real relief to the public will be the setting up at the district level of a complaints body. Redress for serious acts of misconduct can become routine rather than exceptional. Complaints against police personnel in cases of death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody as well as cases of serious abuse of authority will be handled at a local level by an agency that is designed to be independent of the police, and equipped with the power to make binding recommendations. This will surely build public confidence. This in no way supplants the chain of command, as the police will continue to inquire into the majority of complaints. The role of the new body is to plug the lapse of police supervisors who did not prevent such grievous acts of misconduct from occurring in the first place, requiring independent oversight to step in.
But is all this really going to happen? Will the political executive, that for so many years has been used to holding the police on such a tight leash with so much advantage to itself, ever be willing to relinquish this in the greater public interest? The court has set a timeline — perhaps too short — for compliance. The temptation to comply in letter, but to manipulate the spirit of the court’s directives will be almost too great to resist. Experience has shown that when it is a question of wrenching power from the executive’s hands, the result is crippled institutions. One has to look no further than the myriad, ineffective, parasitic commissions set up to look after minorities, SC/STs, and human rights protection.
Government has two choices: it can opt for honest implementation or cosmetic changes. The Supreme Court highlights that its directions are only meant to fill the gap until governments frame “appropriate legislations”. In these two words lies an ocean of interpretation. The draft Police Act currently being prepared by the Police Act Drafting Committee (commonly known as the Soli Sorabjee Committee) provides a good model.
Here is a real chance where honesty of purpose in reforming this fundamental institution will have a powerful knock-on effect in reforming other government agencies as well. No doubt, on January 3 the court will not appreciate hollow displays of intention. This is a crucial moment — the public needs to engage and assist governments and prevent them from squandering this opportunity for real change. January 3 falls in the new year. Can India hope for a new era?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
