Change Resistance

• In May 2008, the Supreme Court set up a monitoring committee to ensure that states implement police reforms
  
• A year later the committee has done little. It has contacted only eight states.
  
• No state has been serious about implementing the court's orders
  
• Even Delhi Police, which comes under the Union home ministry, is yet to see reforms
  
• The apex court had laid down six parameters to make the police effective, accountable and insulated from political interference

***

"The Indian National Congress recognises the imperative of police reforms. A clear distinction between the political executive and police administration will be made. Accountability of the police force will be institutionalised."

—Congress manifesto, 2009

So far the monitoring committee has held just eight meetings and examined the progress in eight states out of the 28 under its charter and is yet to examine the role of the Government of India and the police forces under its direct jurisdiction. Besides Justice Thomas, the committee has retired police official Kamal Kumar and a joint secretary from the Union ministry of home affairs to monitor the implementation of the apex court's 2006 directives. For each sitting, Justice Thomas is entitled to Rs 50,000 while the other members are supposed to get Rs 35,000 each. This means that in the eight sittings the committee has had thus far, Justice Thomas has taken home Rs 4 lakh; the other members have pocketed Rs 2,80,000 each. However, the mha joint secretary has so far declined to accept his sitting fees. Had the monitoring committee shown some urgency in executing its brief, 26/11 would perhaps have been a different story.

Broadly, the six directives issued by the apex court for the states to follow till they legislated a new Police Act were as under:

• Setting up of a state security commission in every state to ensure that the state government did not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police and for laying down broad guidelines so that the state police always acted according to the laws of the land and the Constitution;
  
• Selection of a state's director general of police would be from "amongst the three seniormost officers". The apex court also mandated that the DGP have a minimum tenure of two years. The state government, in consultation with the proposed state security commission could only effect the DGP's removal;

• Fixing a minimum tenure of two years for police officers on operational posts unless they faced disciplinary proceedings or were convicted in a criminal offence;
  
• Setting up a separate investigation police force to ensure criminal cases could be prosecuted effectively. This would ensure that maintenance of law and order, vip security duties and other ancillary duties wouldn't dilute the investigation of criminal offences;

• Setting up a police establishment board that would decide on all postings, transfers, promotions and other service-related matters. The state government could intervene in the workings of this proposed board in "exceptional cases only"; and
  
• Setting up of a police complaints authority at the state level as well as one in every district of the state, headed by a retired high court judge for the state and a retired district court judge for the district. These bodies would look into all complaints of serious misconduct against police officers such as custodial deaths, extortion, land/house grabbing etc.