An undiluted case of contempt

The Bulandshahr incident in which gaurakshaks were emboldened to kill a police inspector was the latest in a series of incidents that have exposed the fragile law and order situation in several parts of the country, primarily due to law enforcement agencies trying to be on the right side of politicians in power. 

The executive wants to maintain the status quo to ensure its hegemony over the police and has therefore been stalling every effort to give even minimum operational autonomy to the police. 

It is a sad commentary on our state governments’ commitment to rule of law that directions given by the highest court of the land are not being implemented in letter and spirit even after a lapse of 12 years. 

The Supreme Court had given six directions to the state governments and one to the central government. These are aimed at insulating the police from external pressures, giving them a fair measure of autonomy in personnel matters, and ensuring that complaints of serious misconduct against the police are effectively acted upon. 

The court also prescribed a procedure for the appointment of Director General of Police and laid down that, once appointed, he shall have a minimum tenure of two years. 

Security of tenure was also assured to officers on operational assignments. It was further stated that the investigation of crime and maintenance of law and order should be separated to improve the quality of investigations.

A total of 17 states have so far passed Police Acts ostensibly in compliance of the court’s directions, but in reality, these are attempts to circumvent their implementation by taking advantage of the fact that the court’s guidelines were to be “operative till the new legislation is enacted by state governments.” 

Institutions mandated by the Supreme Court – State Security Commission, Police Establishment Board, Police Complaints Authority – have been set up, but their charter has been diluted, powers curtailed and composition subverted. 

There is arbitrariness in the appointment of DGPs while police officers on operational duties are transferred for all kinds of administrative reasons before the completion of two years. 

There is tardiness in the separation of investigative and law and order functions of the police. The remaining states have passed executive orders, which are also not in keeping with the letter and spirit of court’s directions. 

Justice Thomas Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court to examine the compliance of its directions, expressed its “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of police being exhibited by the states”.

A number of petitions were filed for issuance of contempt notices to the state governments. On April 23, 2007, on the basis of information then available, the court was asked to initiate contempt proceedings against six states, namely Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. 

In due course, contempt petitions were also filed against the government of Maharashtra in 2013, and against the government of UP in 2015. The court, for inexplicable reasons, has not entertained any of these contempt petitions so far. No wonder, the states continue to flout judicial directions.

The Central government has also not shown commitment to police reforms. Soli Sorabjee had prepared a Model Police Act in 2006, and it was expected that the MHA would legislate a Police Act on those lines. However, that has not been done so far. 

What is worse, the Central government tried to subvert one of the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms by issuing Indian Police Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, whereby a Civil Services Board was constituted to make recommendations for appointment of all cadre officers. 

The composition of the Board was in complete violation of the direction issued by the court in police reforms case regarding setting up of a Police Establishment Board. The IPS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, were challenged and, fortunately, the Supreme Court has stayed their operation.

The government of India is, very unfortunately, even trying to get the court’s 2006 directions diluted. It has been successful to an extent in that, due to the pressure mounted by it. The Supreme Court on July 3, 2018, issued a slew of directions, which amount to diluting the original 2006 mandate of the court regarding the tenure of DGP. 

The original 2006 order mentioned that the Director General of Police shall have “a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation”. On July 3, however, the court said that the DGP’s “extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable period”. This “reasonable period” may be interpreted differently by state governments and would create avoidable confusion.

So, where do we go from here? Would the police reforms agenda be pushed forward and carried to its logical conclusion or would the stalemate continue? Or, if worse, would there be a regressive movement? 

There can be no healthy democracy unless police is insulated from outside pressures. Economic progress can only be sustained on the foundations of good law and order. The future of India is linked to the progress in police reforms.

The questions bothering the common man are: why are state governments not complying with the Supreme Court’s directions? Why are they not hauled over the coals? Why is the majesty of law not upheld?

Author is a police reform campaigner