Delhi Police, the law enforcement authority for the National Capital Territory, came under heavy criticism from residents and political leaders after the force was seen ineffective in the handling of the recent communal violence in February. Justice K.M. Joseph of Supreme Court went to the extent of calling Delhi Police ‘unprofessional’.
The apex court, after citing American and British police as best examples of professional agencies, slammed state governments for non-implementation of its earlier landmark Prakash Singh guidelines.
It is important to understand the history of policing in India in order to understand where things went wrong. The colonial British wanted a system to assert its authority over the less fortunate Indians and found the Royal Irish Constabulary model, first introduced in Sindh Province, now in Pakistan, successful. It was adopted in other parts of India. In the aftermath of the first war of Indian independence in 1857, which they brutally crushed, the Police Act of 1861 was brought into force.
The colonial-era Police Act still continues in almost all states of India. Constitutional policing understanding the concept of the right to life and personal liberty is urgently needed. The Supreme Court in 2006 delivered the landmark Judgment, popularly known as the Prakash Singh case, requiring the union and state governments to urgently kick-start police reforms. Here the Supreme Court directive starts with the establishment of a State Security Commission to evaluate the performance of the state Police and also to ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the Police.
Sir Robert Peel, former British Home Secretary, who is often referred to as the Father of Modern Police, wanted to give legitimacy to his pet initiative- London Metropolitan Police. One of the principles that he adopted for the same was that Police must be under government control. This principle was adopted in independent India also. Over the years, it has led to a political-police nexus that it became a common practice with every change in political leadership, police leadership will also change. The Director-General of Police is selected on the basis of his political loyalty to the leader of the parliamentary party and not based on merits.
The high post of State Police Chief comes with a price; he gives up his power of decision making. Hiring, firing, managing and assigning personnel must be part of the work of senior police leadership as Police being a uniformed force follows a centralised, quasi-military organisational structure with a unified chain of command.
All these form one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is what directly affects society – law enforcement. The quality of the criminal justice system to a great extent is dependent on the working of the men in uniform as India, like many common law countries, adopted the accusatorial system of trial which is distinct from the inquisitorial system where the judge or group of judges investigate the case.
The Malimath Committee on Judicial Reforms says, “The State discharges the obligation to protect life, liberty and property of the citizens by taking suitable preventive and punitive measures which also serve the object of preventing private retribution so essential for maintenance of peace.”
In order to make sure that the criminal justice system does not fail and subsequently lead to private retribution, we have to fix the flaws. The main flaw in the working of the police is due to the clubbing of Law and Order with Investigations.
The officer in charge of a police station in India with his limited manpower is expected to undertake – crime prevention, night patrol, crime investigation, VIP Security, traffic control, collection of Intelligence, riot control, bandobast duties during demonstrations, processions, strikes, protests, presenting the accused to court, aiding other departments in discharging their duties- Court, Revenue, Civil Supplies; Verification for Passport, Public Service Commission, etc. Now can you expect the station-in charge to perform any better? At present, it is often seen that an investigation is stalled when there is a pressing law and order situation or on the rise of a new crime. The end result is failing in both and people losing hope.
The Supreme Court says, “The investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. It must, however, be ensured that there is full coordination between the two wings.”
The implementation of this is stalled mainly by top brass who fear a loss of power and glamour for the post of District Superintendent of Police, Range Inspector General of Police etc. Instead of creating a special Crime Bureau at the state level with district and station level men, many states did an eyewash in the form of the creation of a crime desk and the post of Crime Inspectors at the police station level. My enquiries led to the conclusion that the system is ineffective due to the non-separation of investigation desk into a watertight compartment.
Punjab created history by implementing the segregation of Law and Order (L&O) from Investigations and created a separate Bureau of Investigations (BOI) which will be responsible for investigation work from police station level to district level to state headquarters. Though the good news is coming in from some quarters, the majority of the states are still reluctant.
History should not hold those officers who err while discharging duties in good faith, as culprits. Our system failed them. The domain of policing has expanded. Crime patterns are changing. New challenges are emerging every day. Are we capable enough to face these new challenges with the existing policing system?
Tailpiece: The Royal Irish Constabulary from which India derived its policing system was disbanded when Irish Free State was created in 1922!
About the author: Nebil Nizar is an Advocate at High Court of Kerala. He is a security analyst and a Middle East observer.