BACKGROUND INTO the NEEDED POLICE FORCE REFORMS By

Home , Assam Police, Concurrent List, Delhi Police, Goa Police, Haryana Police, Maharashtra Police

BUILDING SMART POLICE IN INDIA: BACKGROUND INTO THE NEEDED POLICE FORCE REFORMS

By:

Suparna Jain/Aparajita Gupta

1. Background: The past decade has witnessed a steep rise in crime statistics in India. As per the data of the National Crime Resource Bureau, cognizable crimes under the Indian Penal Code have shot up from 18,78,293 from 29,49,400 a drastic increase if 63% and cognizable crimes under the Special and Local Laws have gone up from 32,24,167 to 43,76,699 an increase of 73%. The escalation of the crimes speaks for itself on the state of the criminal justice system in the country. In order to understand the reason behind it, it is important to look into the two facets of criminal justice: police and the judiciary: after all crime and criminals are nabbed by the police and punishment/justice is delivered by the judiciary.

Much has been said and deliberated upon the judicial framework, its shortcomings on delivery of justice and the needed reforms. The present paper refrains from review of this and instead focuses on the other aspect of criminal justice system that is the Police Governance in the country. The paper is divided into 10 sections. Section 2 defines police and traces the organisation of police force within the country‟s governance framework-the Constitution and the Law. Section 3 reflects upon the types of police forces and police statistics. Section 4 traces the history of police reforms in India both pre-independence and post-independence. Section 5 discusses the judicial view on police reforms and Section 6 the implementation of the court directives. Subsequently Section 7 outlines the much needed reforms in the police force governance. Section 8 is on strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation while Section 9 and 10 focus on police governance frameworks for urban and rural areas specifically.

2. Locating Police: The Context

To begin with, a background into what is meant by police. As per the Black‟s Law Dictionary, police is “the function of that branch of the administrative machinery of government which is charged with the preservation of public order and tranquillity, the promotion of the public health, safety, and morals, and the prevention, detection, and punishment of crimes. Police is in general a system of precaution, either for the prevention of crime or of calamities. Its business may be distributed into eight distinct branches: (1) Police for the prevention of offenses ; (2) police for the prevention of calamities; (3) police for the prevention of epidemic diseases; (4) police of charity; (5) police of interior communications; (G) police of public amusements; (7) police for recent intelligence; (S) police for registration."

Seen in the Indian context, „police‟, „public order‟, prisons, reformatories, borstal and other allied institutions under the Constitution of India are state subjects. What this means is that under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which divides the administrative powers between the Central and State Government, Police is managed by the State Government. As a result all states have their individual police laws. That is not to say that the Union Government does not have any say in police governance, Article 355 of the Constitution enjoins upon the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance. It also imposes the duty upon the Union Government to ensure that that government of every state is carried on in accordance with the Constitutional provisions.

Legally, The Police Act, 1861 is still the basic instrument governing the functioning of the Indian Police. Besides the Indian Penal Code, 1862, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Criminal Procedure Copde of 1973 also govern the functioning of the police. Under the Police Act, the Inspector General of Police (now designated as the Director General/Inspector General) are the head of state police. States are divided into districts and a Superintendent of Police heads the district police. A group of districts form a range, which is looked after by an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Some states have zones comprising two or more ranges, under the charge of an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police. Every district is divided into sub-divisions. A sub-division is under the charge of an officer of the rank of ASP/ Dy.S.P. Every sub-division is further divided into a number of police stations, depending on its area, population and volume of crime. Between the police station and the subdivision, there are police circles in some states - each circle headed generally by an Inspector of Police. The police station is the basic unit of police administration in a district. A police station is divided into a number of beats, which are assigned to constables for patrolling, surveillance, collection of intelligence etc.

3. Police Force in India and their Statistics Looking at the police force in the country, India‟s police force is divided into two categories: Civil Police and Armed Police. Civil Police is designated for maintaining law and order, prevention and detection of crime and law enforcement. Armed Police, on the other hand, are seen during natural disasters or riots/civil unrest. The former manages police stations, conduct investigations, answer routine complaints, perform traffic duties, and patrol the streets. The Armed Police, on the other hand are divided into two groups, the district armed police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (Pradeshik). The district armed police are organised along the lines of an army infantry battalion. They are assigned to police stations and perform guard and escort duties. The Provincial Armed Constabulary is an armed reserve maintained at key locations in some states and active only on orders from the deputy inspector general and higher-level authorities. Armed constabulary are not usually in contact with the public until they are assigned to VIP duty or assigned to maintain order during fairs, festivals, athletic events, elections, and natural disasters. They may also be sent to quell outbreaks of student or labour unrest, organised crime, and communal riots; to maintain key guard posts; and to participate in antiterrorist operations. Broadly, the Central Armed Forces are Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Central Reserve Polie Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, National Sectiruty Guards and Special Police Group. In addition to the above two categories, India also has central investigation and intelligence institutions. These include the Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency amongst others.

Having discussed the constitution of police force, we now turn to some statistics that shed light on the functioning of the police in the country. First looking at the police force strength in the country- as on 1.1.2015, as per the data supplied by Bureau of Police Research and Development, the total sanctioned force is 22,63,222 (including both the Civil and Armed Police Forces). Seen from the perspective of the number of citizens per policemen, this sanctioned strength is 182.68 policemen per lakh population. This when appreciated in context of the UN recommended police personnel per lakh population1 of 222, is 18% less than the recommended figures. To make things worse, on ground, the policemen per lakh citizens are merely 139 (17.2 million in all) which is a mammoth 37% less than the recommended figures. According to BPR&D, the actual strength of the police force on

1 “National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p. 128. January 1, 2015 was 17,21,131 (Civil Police 13,50,563 + Armed Police 3,70,568) against the sanctioned strength of 22,63,222 (Civil Police 18,22,358 + Armed Police 4,40,864). The vacancies (5,42,091) need to be filled up so that the police-population ratio improves and comes closer to international standards.

Looking next at the annual spending on police forces in the country, out of the total police expenditure of Rs. 74257.66 crores during 2014-15, a mere 1.46% amounting to Rs.1086.11 of the total police expenditure was spent on training. As a result of this training academies, which play a critical role in the building of the police force lag behind in infrastructure and facilities. Given the increasing crime rate the financial support for modernization of police force should be increasing. Yet the finances provided by the Centre have been falling- the Rs.2000 crores sanctioned till 2014 have fallen to mere Rs. 595 crores in 2016-17.

Unlike the working hours for civilians, staff members of police stations have to remain on duty for 11 hours or more per day. 27.7% SHOs and 30.4% supervisory officers even reported that their staff worked for more than 14 hours a day. As if this is not enough, 73.6% of police station staff indicated that they were not able to avail weekly offs even once a month. What makes the situation even worse is that most (over 80%) of the staff are commonly recalled to duty during their off time, to deal with emergencies of law and order, VIP duties or other works.”

Another set of shocking statistics reveal that something as basic as housing facility is not available to all police personnel. For 17.21 lakh police personnel, only 5.80 lakh family quarters are available as per data with BPR&D, as on January 1, 2015.

This limited force has even more limited material support. 342 police stations across the country do not have a telephone;, 127 stations have no wireless facilities and 54 have neither of the two To reach the crime scene, the police has a little more than seven vehicles for every hundred policemen. Lack of forensic support has piled up pending exhibits to the tune of 6,54,859 waiting to be examined as on 1 January 2015.

The above statistics are just a peak into the dismal state of affairs. However one thing is clear-immediate action on police reforms is an aspect of internal governance which needs immediate and serious attention. 4. History of Police Reforms in India

This is not to say that this aspect has not been given attention. Both pre and post independence, a number of committees and commissions have been appointed and have deliberated upon various aspects of streamlining the effectiveness of police governance in the country. It all commenced with the 1st Police Commission which was set up soon after the 1857 Mutiny to deliberate upon the regulatory framework for police in the country. Set up in 1860, the recommendations of this Commission resulted in the enactment of the Police Act of 1861-a law that still governs police.

A review of the issues arising from the implementation of the Police Act of 1861 was done in 1902, through the setting up of the 2nd Police Commission. The Commission came out with a detailed report covering various aspects relating to the organization of police force, adequacy of training, strength, pay, the sufficiency of procedure for reporting crime, investigating offences, adequacy of supervision exercised by the Magistracy over the police, the control of the superior officers over the investigation of crime, relation between railway police and district police etc. What is interesting to note is that even way back then, it found the police far from efficient, defective in training and organisation, and one which was generally regarded as "corrupt and oppressive."

Post-independence with changing economic, political and social set up in the country, the need to revisit the police governance was felt several times. Post-independence, the first Police Reforms Committee was set up by Kerala in 1959. This was followed by a succession of Police Commissions appointed by different State Governments mainly during sixties and seventies (West Bengal in 1960-61, Punjab in 1961-62, Delhi in 1968, Tamil Nadu in 1971 to name a few). At the Central Government level, a Working Group on Police by the Administrative Reforms Commission was set up in 1966.

This was followed by the setting up of the Gore Committee on Police Training in 1971 and subsequently the National Police Commission which, between 1977-1981, submitted 8 reports suggesting wide ranging reforms in the existing police set-up and also a Model Police Act. None of the major recommendations by the National Police Commission were adopted by any government. This persuaded two former Director General‟s of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India) asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 year long case, in 1998 the Court set up the Ribeiro Committee to review action taken to implement the recommendations of the.

While the matter was underway in the SC, in 2000, the Ministry of Home Affairs set up the Padmanabhaiah Committee to examine the requirements of policing in the new millennium. Subsequently, the Malimath Committee on reforms of Criminal Justice System in India was set up in 2003.

5. Judicial Intervention-Landmark Judgement on Police Reforms

In 2006, the Hon‟ble SC gave a landmark judgement in the Prakash Singh case with seven directions (six for the state government and one for the Union) for setting up of state Security Commission to lay down broad policies and give directions for preventive tasks and service and constituted the Soli Sorabjee Committee which suggested a Model Police Act. The Court directed the setting up of three institutions, namely:

a) State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police; b) Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department which shall decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of departmental officers and men; and c) Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to inquiring into allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the Court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empaneled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC, and that he shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the IG Zone, DIG Range, SP i/c District and SHO i/c Police Station would also have a minimum tenure of two years. The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government was asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

6. Implementation of SC Directions

The Court directed the Union and the States to implement its orders aforesaid orders by the end of 2006. This deadline was subsequently extended till March 31, 2007. The Court opined that its directions would be operational till a model Police Act is prepared by the Central Government and / or the State Government pass the requisite legislations.

Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all States and Union Territories. However, in 2008 it set up a three member Monitoring Committee with a two year mandate to examine compliance state by state and report back to it periodically. The Supreme Court also appointed the Justice Thomas Committee which submitted a report in 2010. It expressed “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being exhibited by the States”. Another committee constituted under Justice Verma to examine Amendments to Criminal Law in the context of a gang rape incident in 2012 deplored the lack of implementation of the Court‟s seven directions in the Prakash Singh case.

The status of Compliance of Supreme Court‟s directions (As on August 1, 2016) is attached as Annexures. Annexure-I shows the states which have passed executive orders and Annexure-II shows states which have passed Acts.

A review of the status of implementation of the SC directions reveals a dismal picture. In what is considered to be bye-passing court the directions, seventeen states (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajashan, Sikkim, Tamilnadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand) passed new laws legitimizing status quo while other states passed merely executive orders. Even Central government has yet to pass the Delhi Police Bill. However, even these are not reflected at the ground level. In November 2014 the Hon‟ble PM unveiled his vision for SMART Police – police which should be strict and sensitive, modern and mobile, alert and accountable, reliable and responsible, techno-savvy and trained.

7. Reforms for SMART Police:

Broadly, reforms are needed on three fronts: first improvement in capacity and infrastructure of police forces, second revisiting the constitution of police forces in the country through legislative/ administrative changes, and third technological scaling-up. Within each of these three heads, changes are required at several levels. The section below outlines these below.

a. Boosting capacity and infrastructure: Boosting infrastructure and capacity of the police forces includes increase in the number of police personnel in the country, improvement in recruitment, training and service conditions including upgradation on one hand and improving the infrastructure, working hours, housing facilities on the other.

Various studies on the police force in the country have revealed that while work pressure and complexities in handling law and order and investigating crime have grown at an enormous pace, manpower growth has not been commensurate2. Studies have also shown that often, police personnel need to be deputed as attachments in other superior offices, further reducing manpower for policing3. To tackle this problem, there is an urgent requirement to recruit more people. Experts suggest that after 18 years of service, some CAPFs could switch to the Armed Police of the state. This is one way of filling vacancies. Another reform is using technology to supplement manpower4. There is a link between vacancies and lack of adequate training facilities. The latter may be one reason preventing state police forces from quickly filling up the posts. To address this, experts suggest that some trained Central Armed Police Forces personnel can be deputed in states. As per the Second Administrative Commission, training needs to be made an attractive option for the trainers. This can be done through provision of better facilities and attractive allowances. This will attract motivated trainers.

2 “National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.13 3 “National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.13 4 “National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.14. Police, as part of their job profiles, need to constantly interact with the public. This requires the police to be sensitive which can be achieved through attitudinal training. To help the police officers upgrade their skills, refresher courses should be made compulsory and a pre- requisite for promotion. A well trained force would efficiently discharge their duties.

Next, the quality of life of the police force needs special attention. Long working hours reduce motivation to work and increase stress. Section 22 of the Police Act, 1861 states that a police officer is “always on duty”. This creates the problem. Recently, policemen in Karnataka took a mass leave calling for an hour shift. Calls for a shift system has been heard from many quarters. Appreciating this concern, there is a need to stipulate humane working hours for policemen. Some states have already done so. Kerala has introduced eight hour duty system in its Police Act, becoming the first state. Haryana has also gone for the shift system. Such a switch requires more people. It has been estimated that India would need 3,37,500 people if eight hour shift is introduced5. Taking an incremental approach, experts suggest a 12 hour shift can be introduced.

Another facet of a quality life is provision of accommodation. The National Police Commission has recommended that all gazetted and non-gazetted officers need to be provided with family accommodation. In addition, there is a need to provide them with humane living conditions. The 5th Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission has supported the need for undertaking major housing construction programmes for them. This would help them give their best to national service.

Next, hard infrastructure needs a total overhaul. To support the policemen, transport and communication facilities need to be expanded and upgraded. To augment forensic support, there is a need to have forensic laboratories in each district or at best at Divisional/Range levels. Experts have pointed to Gujarat as a model in this regard. Ahmedabad has the State Forensic Science Laboratory. In addition, Ahmedabad Junagadh, Rajkot, Surat and Vadodara have regional laboratories with one district laboratory in Valsad. Moreover, 47 mobile laboratories cover the entire State. This is supplemented by the Gujarat Forensic Sciences University and a Directorate of Forensic Science in Gandhinagar.

5 “National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p. 127.

These measures will ensure adequate and quality policing. b. Legislative reforms: The legislative changes include, enactment of the organized Crimes Act, a single police act for the country, moving Police to the Concurrent List, declaration of Federal Crimes, measures regarding registration of crimes, statutory backing for the CBI, Commissionerate system for large areas, revival and strengthening of the beat constable system and some changes in criminal procedure and evidence systems.

With respect to Organized Crimes, India is a signatory to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes. But as on date, India does not have a central legislation to tackle such crimes. Only Maharashtra has the MCOCA Act which has been adopted by some other states. In times of rising cases of money laundering; arms, drugs and human trafficking; expanding terror networks, etc, there is an urgent need to have a Central law to regulate the same.

It is needless to reiterate that safe and secure environment is a basic need to sustain economic progress of the country. And the first step towards that direction is amending the colonial police regime in the country. The British had enacted the Police Act, 1861 for the entire country. Now, each state has come up with its own laws where basic features differ. Some of these laws have even been challenged in court on grounds of unconstitutionality. This is an anomalous situation. To have uniformity in basic features which are in tune with the present, experts suggest that Article 252 can be relied on to have a single police law if two or more states consent. Based on this, states can adopted their laws as per local situations. In this respect, the Model Police Act was prepared in 2006 which has now been revised to a Model Police Bill 2015.

Another area of concern is the growing threats to internal security, terrorism, Left Wing Extremism due to which policing only by the state without Central support will be difficult. Very often, instances like inter-state disputes, communal riots, clashes between different castes and mela duties demand the services of the Central Armed Police Force. As mentioned above, under the Constitutional framework, police and public order come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government. The duty of the Union Government is to provide armed and para-military forces when needed and to ensure that the executive power of every state be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that state. It is often argued that these challenges will be resolved better if “police” and “public order” are shifted from the State List in the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution to the Concurrent List. This can also be done by amending entry 3 in the Concurrent List formalising what is actually happening on the ground. The need for inclusion of Public Order in Concurrent list stems from significance of public order for national security, economic development and legitimacy of the state. Generally, the Union Government is unable to intervene in cases of flouting of public order at a state level unless the state seeks assistance. This, it is has been observed, often snowball into a national crisis which then has to be addressed through the extreme emergency provisions. It is therefore argued that by including “Public Order” in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, the Union Government can play a more proactive role in curbing violation of public order at a nascent stage. Another reason supporting the shift of public order to the Concurrent List is the rapid increase in inter-state crimes. Tackling these in the present framework is slightly challenging since all states have varied legal and administrative framework. In light of the rapid growth in internet, communication and mobile technologies, organised crimes and terrorism can be best tackled through a unified legal, administrative and operational framework for the police forces across the nation. This can be accomplished only by empowering the Union Government to also regulate public order.

But this would require a Constitutional Amendment which could be difficult. Instead, the Centre can declare certain crimes as Federal Crimes. What this means is that certain offence which have inter-state or national ramifications should be governed by a new law. As per the report of the Second Administrative Reforms Committee, the State Police as well as the CBI could be given the concurrent jurisdiction over investigation of all such crimes. Their investigation can then be given to a central agency like the NIA or CBI. These crimes could be:

i. Organized Crime ii. Terrorism iii. Acts threatening National Security iv. Trafficking in arms and human beings v. Sedition vi. Major crimes with inter-state ramifications vii. Assassination of (including attempts on) major public figures viii. Serious economic offences

With regard to registration of crimes, there are some concerns. There have been instances where crime figures are kept low in order to portray a crime free image. This is done through concealment of crime. There have also been instances of false and highly exaggerated complaints. Another issue is corruption in registration and non-registration of FIRs. To tide over these issues, experts suggest the introduction of a dual system. While all the complaints will be registered, FIRs will only be registered when the police find a crime has been committed after a preliminary verification. This can be done through an amendment to Section 157 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which would then read as follows: "If from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station, after such preliminary verification as he deems necessary, has reason to suspect the commission of an offence……” Recently, the Supreme Court has directed the police to upload FIRs within 48 hours to bring in more transparency to the system. Though it provides for exceptions to protect sensitive cases and extension in light of practical difficulties, the move if implemented well will bring people closer to the system.

c. Administrative Reforms: In addition to the legislative changes, there is an urgent need for administrative reforms as well. On the administrative side, changes include separation of investigation from law and order, specialized wings for Social and Cyber Crimes, restricting the police to core functions, setting up authorities as directed by the Supreme Court, strengthening state machinery and linking prosecution with police.

As suggested by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, “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 also mentioned that there should be “full coordination” between the two. As per the 6th report of the National Police Commission, such a separation should be restricted to the police station level under the Station House Officer (SHO). Officers above the SHO would be responsible for both investigation and law and order. Implementing this suggestion would need more human resources but is worth pursuing.

For efficient policing, there is a need for the police force to restrict themselves to core functions. A suggested reform is that Excise, Forest, Transport and Food departments need to have their own enforcement wings to relive the State Police from their routine functions. 5th Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission further suggests that functions like serving court‟s summons, antecedents and addresses verification for passport applications or job verifications etc. can be outsourced to private agents or government departments. These measures will help in reducing the workload of the police.

Moreover, specialized crimes require a specialized approach and personnel to deal with them. Social crimes like offences related to beggary, prostitution, crimes against women, domestic violence, dowry offences, etc cannot be handled by the traditional daroga. Experts suggest that it needs to be handled by a separate wing with people like students who have graduated in Social Science/Social Work. Another upcoming category of crimes is cyber crimes. In light of its highly complex nature, experts feel that one can recruit students who have done MCA or passed out from an IIT as sub-inspectors/inspectors under the State CID. To prevent detection, they should work in plain clothes. The Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh v. Union of India outlined some other administrative reforms to reform the police system. As already pointed out, very few states have taken steps to comply with the judgment. In the present times of cooperative federalism, the Centre needs to sit with the states to motivate them to follow the following SC directions:

i. Setting up of State Security Commission laying down broad policies and directions for police functioning ii. Police Establishment Board to decide on transfers, postings, promotions, and other service related issues iii. Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels as redressal mechanisms for complaints against police iv. Selection of DGP by the state government from panel of three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empaneled by the UPSC for promotion, v. Fixed tenure of officers on operational duties

At the central level, the SC had directed that a National Security Commission should be established for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading these forces and improving service conditions. Rising terror attacks have brought out weaknesses in state response. There is an urgent need to enhance state police capabilities so that they can counter terrorism on their own in emergency. Experts suggest the following measures:

i. Like the National Security Guard (NSG) at the Centre, states should set up their own State Security Guard (SSG). Based on the size of the state and gravity of the threat, SSG can range between 100 to 300. ii. To tackle international terrorism, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act needs to be strengthened. iii. A National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) needs to be established.

Presently, prosecution and police are separated at the State level and the same is favoured at the Centre. Integration and coordination of the two is in the best interest of the criminal justice system. This has been recommended by the National Police Commission and the Malimath Committee. Such an approach is not new and is followed in the US and the UK. It is suggested that at the state level, the Director of Prosecution should be placed under administrative control of the Director General of Police.

d. Technological Scaling: Technological reforms includes modernization of the control room, fast tracking the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) pushing for National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and pushing for incorporation of new technology into policing.

The police force needs to keep pace with changing times. Modernization of the force has become inevitable especially in cyber security, counter-terrorism/insurgency and relying on technology for policing. This calls for more investment especially for modernization and technological upgradation. Further, control rooms need to be upgraded. There is a need to have a unique and integrated emergency number as is present in other parts of the world. To do this, the National Emergency Response System (NERS) of the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to be operationalized. Like Madhya Pradesh which has built DIAL 100 Call Centres for swift response to emergency calls, other states should also adopt a similar system.

To enable police stations to exchange information, they need to be connected through a seamless network. Realizing this need, an ambitious project in the form of Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) was sanctioned in 2009. Its main aim was to connect 15,000 police stations and 5000 supervisory police officers. Though the system was to be in place by 2012, the deadline has been extended to 2017. Once it is in place, data exchange would be easier.

Departmentalized investigations sometimes miss the holistic picture. To counter terrorism, a holistic analysis of different facets of the information is necessary. Keeping this is in mind, there is a need to push for the NATGRID or National Intelligence Grid. It involves combining 21 sensitive databases into a single one which can be accessed by authorized Central officers from the IB, RAW, CBI, DRI, and ED. Databases included in the grid are banks, credit cards, cellphone usage, immigration records, motor vehicle registration, income tax records. Such a grid will help investigators in understanding the complete profile of a suspect. Recently, there were news reports about Delhi Police tying up with ISRO, the Indian Space agency, for mapping crimes and predictive policing. The „Crime Mapping Analytics and Predictive System‟ uses space technology to tackle internal security threats. Police officials would be equipped with Personal Digital Assistant Devices with stored crime related data for easy access. The system also has provision for converting distress calls into digital messages giving the location using GPS. If such path breaking technology is utilized by Indian police, policing will become effective. Thus, technology needs to be used in modernizing the police force to be able to meet current and future challenges.

The reforms outlined above will pave the way for a robust police system apt to deal with the ever-changing nature of challenges. But the reforms need to be undertaken on a sustained basis to keep the police relevant to the changing needs of the society. An easy starting point for states is to look at the Model Police Bill, 2015 and incorporate similar provisions, adapted to their local conditions, into their state police laws.

8. Strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation:

In addition to the above discussed reforms, one critical area where reform is needed is the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). The CBI traces its origin to WWII. It was established in 1941 as the Special Police Establishment, tasked with domestic security. However, it was renamed as the Central Bureau of Administration on the basis of the recommendations of the Sanathanam Committee in 1963. It is interesting to note that the Central Bureau of Investigation at the Centre derives its power from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and has been created through an executive resolution. Over the years much deliberation has been done on shortcomings of the CBI and the reforms needed. In 1978, a LP Singh Committee was set up which recommended the “enactment of a comprehensive Central Legislation to remove the deficiency of not having a central investigative agency with a self- sufficient statutory charter of duties and functions”. The 19th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2007 and the 24th Report of the Parliamentary Committee in 2008 have emphasized on the same. In 2011, a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha to look into the Lokpal Bill also made suggested drastic reforms to the CBI in order to ensure its independence These relate to autonomy, appointment and control over the CBI.

The matter pertaining to autonomy of CBI once again came before the Supreme Court in the Coal Block Allocation matter in 2013. The Court rapped the government for having failed to ensure functional autonomy to the Central Bureau of Investigation and asked the government to “come out with a law to insulate the agency from external influence and intrusion”. Accordingly the then Prime Minister constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to consider the matter relating to an appropriate law being made to provide for the independence of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its functional autonomy. The GoM recommended that a panel of retired judges would monitor the CBI investigations to prevent external interference. In addition, it also recommended an increase in the financial powers of the CBI Director, and a new mechanism for the appointment of the Director (Prosecution) which is a Law Ministry appointee at present. However, these reforms were heavily criticised on grounds of being merely on-surface changes.

Broadly, the areas where reforms are sought in relation to CBI are as under. Foremost is revisiting the functioning of CBI as a Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946. This has been discussed in detail by the Padmanabhaiyah Committee in its report. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission report has also expressed concern about the power of CBI to investigate criminal cases only with the consent of State Governments. The Commission has opined that a law should be enacted using the powers of the Union Government under the Constitution to define the constitution of the CBI, its structure and jurisdiction.

Another issue relating to functioning of the CBI, like all police force, is vacancy in the sanctioned strength. As per PIB, vacancy positions in CBI as on 18.4.2012 was as under:-

Cadre Sanctioned Strength Available Strength Vacancy Executive 4510 3901 609 Legal 318 258 60 Technical 155 115 40 Ministerial 1,538 1,436 102 Canteen posts 70 43 27 TOTAL 6,591 5,753 838

In addition to the above the key, perhaps one of the key areas where reforms are needed in the functioning of the CBI is its autonomy. CBI‟s lack of autonomy can be traced to its rules for appointment of its Director and limitations on its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has recently referred to the CBI as a “caged parrot speaking in a master‟s voice”. The autonomy to function free from the control of the executive is the need of the hour. In this one suggestion has been to make the CBI accountable to the Lokpal.

9. Establishing a Police Commissionerate Setup in Urban Areas:

Urban areas in India have been witnessing rapid growth. As a result challenges for the police in cities have also become immense. In this situation, as recommended by the National Police Commission in the 6th report, a system of Police Commissionerate should be introduced in cities with population of five lakhs and above and places where special conditions like speedy urbanisation, industrialisation, etc. demand it. Here a little background on the rationale for the Commissionerate system would help. Initially, the Commissionerate system was introduced in some metropolitan areas like Calcutta, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Madras. But over the years, it has extended to fast growing cities like Delhi, Gurgaon, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack, Pune, Nagpur, Vishakhapatnam, Ahmedabad, Mysore, Kochi, Trichy to name a few. As compared to police in districts, Police in commissionerates in small areas had given better accounts of themselves as per the 6th Report of the National Police Commission. It noted that changing dynamism and growing complexities of security threats required a swift and prompt response leaving very little time for discussion and debate. It found that having a direct and not a mere supervisory role of a senior police officer in the daily functioning of the police was a great advantage. The Commissioner needs to be a senior, mature police officer with adequate expertise having full authority over the force and functional autonomy. Though resisted, this can be started in urban areas with population of 10 lakhs and above, metropolitan areas and any other notified area as mentioned in the Model Police Bill, 2015. In the present context, with the Central Government keen on pushing the Smart Cities Mission, a professional and autonomous yet accountable police force is needed. Further, it would be helpful to take inputs related to safety, security and policing needs from the Commissioner of Police while planning any major developmental activity in an urban or metropolitan area as suggested by the Model Police Bill, 2015.

In order to introduce this system, the State or UT Police Act can be amended empowering the state governments or Central Government in a UT to create a Police Commissionerate and empower police officers to exercise powers of the District Magistrate and Executive Magistrate. This can be done on the lines of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the Orissa Urban Police Act, 2003.

10. Developing Beat Constabulary in Rural Areas: Another neglected area is the beat constable system. At the All India Director General of Police Conference at Dhordo, Rann of Kutch in 2015, the Prime Minister said that “Police forces should establish strong links with local community and connect with people.” Further, he mentioned about reviving the beat constable system for information collection. In 2009, at the Conference of Chief Ministers on Internal Security, the then Home Minister mentioned “reactivating the beat constable system” as one of the important concerns.

These statements need to be understood in light of the rising internal security challenges as well as terrorist attacks. While there is an active police force as well as specialized agencies to deal with these threats, many feel that there is absence of grass root intelligence. It is here that the Beat Constable system becomes relevant. Under this system, the beat constables have a close association with the community making it easy to get information and also observe any suspicious activities or behaviour. In the past, a close link between the police and the community in this system, helped in prevention and investigation6. Even the Second Administrative Commission in its 5th Report recommended that the beat constable system be restored. Highlighting its advantages, it noted that the system apart from being an important source of information, gave citizens a sense of security.

At present specialized forces like the Anti-Terrorism Squads and rapid action forces have diluted the role of police stations, Station House Officers and even the beat constable7. In present times, where even a small piece of information can help avert a major security attack,

6 FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.78. 7 FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.78. it is important to fall back on the beat constable system. Beat patrolling on foot and mobile patrol, equipped with modern equipment is the need of the hour8. To be able to make contacts in the community, the beat constables need to be kept on the same beat for 2 years9. This will create a powerful first line of intelligence.

The beat constable system can be revived through the legislative route. For example, in the Kerala Police Act, 2011, Section 65 clearly outlines the duties and responsibilities of the beat patrols. These include keeping contact with the Community Contact Committee (comprising of local representatives) and active participants in the community life; reviewing steps to prevent offences in the beat area; information collection with respect to criminals, terrorists and anti-social elements in the area and communicating it to the relevant officer; observing various people like criminals under special observation in the beat area, people with criminal background and those with a bad character; having an understanding of local disputes which can involve violence in future and giving its details to the relevant officer; mentioning the grievances and complaints of the general public in respect of police, in writing, to the relevant officer and keeping a record of work done during the visit which needs to be submitted to the relevant officer.

In Kerala itself, an earlier project, namely the Janamaithri Suraksha Project had paved the way for „Community Police‟ system. Launched in 2008, this project involved policing with the community, understanding the latter‟s needs, special problems and prioritizing community security10. At the centre of this project is the beat officer who is accessible to the public, understands their needs and interacts with the community closely11. House visits by these beat officers are common. This helps them to build link with the community members.

To involve the community to give inputs for policing, Community Contact Committee like in the Kerala Police Act, 2011 or Community Liaison Groups under the Model Police Bill, 2015 can be created. These committees or groups consist of local residents to advise the police in respect of their needs. In rural areas, a Village Defence Party can be formed on similar lines as suggested in the Model Police Bill, 2015. Following this model, legislative change backed with such schemes and projects can be introduced in other states.

8 FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.79. 9 FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p. 80. 10 http://keralapolice.org/newsite/janamaithri.html. 11 http://keralapolice.org/newsite/janamaithri_social.html#jana2 To Sum Up

The needs for a fast growing economy like India for safe environment particularly in light of the complex security threats in present times are imminent. Terrorism, Left Wing Extremism, crimes including cyber-crimes, law and order issues threats which call for a strong and efficient police for internal security. A review of the police governance framework, the legal setup, the issues ailing the police force –all call from making police reforms one of the greatest priority for the country.

The report has been made taking in inputs from experts including Mr. Prakash Singh.

Disclaimer: Views are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of NITI Aayog

Annexure - 1

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on August 1, 2016) (In States which have issued Executive Orders)

Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks . State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities N &order Board o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6) (Direction No.5) State Government State government 1 Andhra State Government Yes, G.O. issued on Board constituted Government issued order on State government have issued order on Pradesh claims to have 07.02.07. vide G.O. dated had drafted a 8.8.2013 issued order dated 8.8.2013 8.8.2013 implemented first 07.02.07. Police Act reconstituting SSC However, some civil on the subject. constituting component of Amendment with following society Comments Complaints direction regarding Bill in 2008, members: representatives who Authority at State selection of DGP. 1) Not authorized to but that was HM, Leader of met Thomas and District levels. make never tabled. Opposition, Chief Comments Committee at Its recommendations With the Secy., DGP and 5 Hyderabad on recommendations 1. Has asked GOI to regarding postings bifurcation of independent members 17.7.09 alleged that will be binding. issue clarifications / / transfers of the State, (Sorabjee Model). transfer orders were amendments to AIS gazetted police compliance of Recommendations of being issued (DCRB) Rules 1958. officers. the directives SSC would be frequently in gross will have to be binding. violation of the G.O. 2. Has filed 2) Not to function as reviewed. interlocutory forum of appeal on Comments application, seeking representations Post- 1. Procedure for non-involvement of from officers bifurcation, selection of UPSC in selection regarding their Andhra Pradesh “independent process. promotion/transfer passed the members” not etc. or their being Police Post-bifurcation, AP clarified . subjected to illegal (Reforms) Act has passed Police orders. 2014 which 2. SSC will meet at (Reforms) Act which legislates only least once in six legislates only on the 3) Not to review the on the months. It should appointment of DGP. functioning of appointment of meet more Complies with SC police. DGP. frequently, at least directive except the

once a month. additional sub-section of “on other administrative

grounds to be recorded in writing” for the removal of

Annexure - 1

2 Arunachal Constituted vide Notification dated Notification dated Notification dated 27.02.07 Constitution provided Constitution of a Arunanchal Pradesh Notification dated 18.12.06 issued, but 18.12.06 issued. issued deciding such for, vide Notification State-level Pradesh Police 27.02.07, choosing in view of the However, since the separation in nine densely dated 14.12.06. Authority provided Act was the model laid down concurrent posting of IPS populated urban police for, vide drafted, but yet in the Model Police administrative officers in Arunachal stations. Notification dated to be passed by Act. arrangement under Pradesh is controlled 27.02.07. legislature.

which the DGP for by MHA, the order of Comments Comments Arunachal Pradesh is the Government of 1) Instead of selected by MHA and Arunachal Pradesh 1) Complaint two official members not by the State will be infructuous in Authorities at the (Chief Secretary and Government, the so far as the postings district-level not DGP), the State Govt. notification becomes of IPS officers are provided for. added two more infructuous. concerned. (Home

Commissioner and the IGP) in the Commission. 2) No judicial person included in the Commission, as envisaged in the „Model Police Act‟ of Soli Sorabjee Committee. Officers posted in 3 Goa Constituted vide an No order issued. The No town with 10 lakh or Constituted vide Goa has only two Goa Police Bill Goa are part of Order dated 03.04.07 State Government‟s more of population Order dated 15.02.07. districts. As such 2008 AGMU (Arunachal, adopting the NHRC stand is that: there is only a State introduced in Goa, Mizoram and Seven police station have Comments model. level Police state 1) Selection of UT) cadre. MHA is nevertheless been identified 1) The Order Complaints legislature. Comments DGP is done by the cadre controlling for separation with respect does not specifically Authority. It is Select MHA, and the State to ten types of heinous 1. Lokayukta or, in authority. state that the State headed by a senior Committee has no control over crimes his absence, one more Government would Retired Judge of constituted to the selection as also

Annexure - 1

Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks . State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities N &order Board o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6) (Direction No.5) retired High Court over the tenure of the interfere with the Mumbai High examine the Tenure of officers is Judge is not included officer. decisions of the Court Bill. The Bill two years “unless in the composition, as Board only in however lapsed 2) MHA will circumstances prescribed by NHRC. exceptional cases and in 2012. State be requested to otherwise warrant”. after recording its Government is 2. Not clarified that ensure two years‟ Comments reasons for doing so. reportedly recommendations of tenure “unless the drafting a Board will be binding State itself has a 2) It also does State Govt. wants to revised Police strong reservation” have the prerogative not specify that the In its latest affidavit Bill. about continuance of to transfer officers recommendations of (July 2013) State a particular under certain the Board regarding Govt. has taken the incumbent. circumstances, which the postings and stand that this have not been transfers of officers direction “affects the Comments specified of and above the rank Constitutional State Govt. wants to of SP shall be given distribution of have the prerogative due weightage by the powers”. The to express its State Government affidavit nevertheless reservations about a and normally goes on to say that in particular incumbent accepted. matters of investigation police should be “fully insulated from any political interference”.

4 Jammu & Not complied, No orders issued. Not complied. State Government has Created, vide order Not complied. Jammu and Kashmir moved application before dated 6.02.07. Kashmir Police State Govt. has State Govt. has the Supreme Court for Bill 2013 moved application Comments moved application suspending the drafted and before the Supreme before the Supreme implementation of the But the order is made available Court for suspending Court for direction. silent about: for public the implementation suspending the feedback. of the direction. implementation of 1) Role of the Board There has been in respect of the direction. However, according to no further postings / transfers latest affidavit, separate Comments development. of officers above

Annexure - 1

5 Jharkhand Created, vide No order issued. Order issued, vide Vide a Resolution dated Police Establishment Constituted, both at Police Bill notification dated Guidelines from notification dated 31.12.06, separate cadres Board constituted State and District- being drafted. 31.12.06. UPSC awaited 27.02.07 providing for investigation and law vide notification levels, vide for minimum tenure and order wing constituted dated 19.02.07, Resolution dated Comments of two years for for the urban areas of reconstituted vide 03.04.07. 1) There is no judicial police officers on Ranchi, Jamshedpur, notification dated Comments element in the operational duties in Bokaro and Dhanbad. 9.10.2009. composition of the the field. 1) However, the Comments Comments Commission. resolution does not 1) Order does not specify 1) Order is silent on make the 1) The order does any details of how the the Supreme Court recommendations not mention separation would be direction that the of the Complaints anywhere that the effected. State Government Authorities binding recommendations may interfere with the on the concerned of the decisions of the authority. Commission shall Board only in be binding. exceptional cases, 2) No mention also and after duly

Annexure - 1

6 Madhya State Security Orders issued on Orders issued on State Govt. has, vide its Created vide orders State Govt. have, Pradesh Council constituted 14.02.07. 14.02.07. order dated 27.08.2012, dated 14.2.07. vide their order vide Home Dept approved appointment of dated 30.08.2010, Comments Comments Comments order dated 400 additional police constituted 1) No role of the 13.12.2011, as per (1) Officers can officers in four 1) The Board is Complaint Board at UPSC in the Sorabjee model. be prematurely metropolitan areas / to deal with transfers / district level. selection process. removed for “failure districts of Bhopal, Indore, postings of officers Comments Comments 2) An additional in controlling a grave Gwalior and Jabalpur. upto the rank of 1) It is an advisory clause of „failure to law and order Inspector only, not 1) District level Comments body, whose provide leadership situation”. DySPs. Board is headed by recommendations in a grave situation 1) Additional staff will be Minister i/c District (2) They can 2) The Board is will not be binding on of general law and used both for investigation instead of retired also be removed on not authorized to State Govt. order‟ has been and law & order. District and “becoming otherwise finally decide on added for the Sessions Judge. 2) No provision for premature removal incapable of 2) Separate staff for transfer / postings on report of Council of DGP. discharging official investigation not provided its own. The order 2) Other members being placed before responsibilities”, for. mandates that all the of the Board also State Legislature. 3) No procedure is instead of “becoming decisions of the Board not as per Supreme prescribed for such incapacitated” as per should be forwarded to Court direction.

removal to ensure Supreme Court‟s the State Govt. “before

objectivity and direction. implementation”. credibility of 3)Recommendat- (3) No 3) Recommendat action. ions of Board will procedure is ions of the Board on be referred to prescribed for such transfer / postings of authorized premature removals. SPs and above are to be commissions / given only “reasonable police, will not be weightage” by the State

Annexure - 1

7 Manipur Constituted vide Order dated 28.12.06 Order dated 28.12.06 Not applicable as no town or Constituted vide Constituted vide Manipur Police Order dated 31.03.07. issued. issued urban area has a population Order dated 28.12.06. Order dated Bill, 2007 of 10 lakhs or more. 31.03.07. drafted. Comments Minimum tenure Comments However, it has notified, except in Comments Composition does not 1) The Board is yet to be cases of include a judicial authorized to decide 1) The independent approved by superannuation. element. only transfers / members of the the State postings of DySPs, State-level Government. and below. For other Authority are all service matters, it retired bureaucrats. will only make 2) Independent recommendations. members for the 2) For SPs and above, District-level the Board will make Authorities do not recommendations, seem to have been but the order does not nominated. specify that the 3) The Government will give recommendations due weight to those of the Complaints recommendations and Authorities are not

Annexure - 1

8 Nagaland Constituted vide Notification dated Notification dated Notification dated 30.03.07 State has a committee State level Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. 30.03.07 issued. issued. headed by Chief Authority 30.03.07. Secretary and constituted, vide

comprising DGP, Notification dated Comments Comments Commissioner and 30.03.07 It has no role in Home Secretary for It specifies that the Comments evaluation of the purpose, under an separation is to be effected performance of the old order of 1998. 1) Notification is within the available State Police and silent on making budgetary and manpower Comments preparing a report recommendations resources, which appears thereon for being 1) Arrangement is not of the Authority non-committal. placed before the in keeping with binding on the State legislature. Court‟s directives. administrative authorities 2) State constituted concerned. an Establishment Board vide Order 2) District level dated 17.01.07, Authorities not which has been constituted. vested with powers of postings and transfers

Annexure - 1

9 Odisha Not constituted. Notification issued on Notification issued on Notification issued on Created vide Vide notification Odisha Police 06.04.07. 06.04.07 providing 06.04.07, separating notification dated dated 06.04.07, the Bill has been

for tenure of two investigation from law and 06.04.07, State-level drafted but is Comments years for police order in two major cities - Authority is vested yet to be Comments 1) Zone of officers on Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. in the Lokpal who passed. consideration for operational duties. 1) Not authorized to will deal with the Comments selection not make complaints under Comments specified. 1) Mechanics of recommendations to the Orissa Lokpal 1) An officer can be implementation of the State Govt. with and Lokayuktas 1) No role for removed prematurely separation are not specified regard to the postings Act, 1995. UPSC in if he is found in the notification. and transfers of empanelment of Comments “otherwise incapable officers of and above officers of discharging his the rank of SP. 1) Arrangement is 2) Minimum responsibilities”. a deviation from 2) Also, not tenure of two years Court‟s directions. 2) He may also be authorized to act as a

Annexure - 1

Constituted, vide GO OM dated Dec.2, Tenure of two years There are already 10 Uttar No G.O. or O.M issued. Letter dated dated 2.12.10, and 2010 deals with given to field several forums like Pradesh Instead, the State 12.03.2008 of 17.02.2011. selection/tenure of officers. Government State Human Government issued a letter Principal Secretary, Again reconstituted DGP, however says that it Rights dated 07.09.2007 to the DGP Home, addressed to on 26.7.13, accepting has to transfer Commission, SC / stating that in the initial DGP, provides for the Ribeiro model. Comments officers in ST Commission, phase, the separation of constitution of four Commission has, in “contingent Minorities crime investigation from law different Police addition to prescribed 1) DGP will be circumstances and Commission, and order shall be Establishment members, one selected by a exigencies of ground Women‟s implemented to Inspector- Boards, one each to Cabinet Minister, Committee situation” Commission, level police stations, and deal with the State- Principal Secretary comprising Chief Backward directing him to identify 4, 2 level transfers of (i) (Home), and Secy., Principal Commission, Lok and 1 sub-inspector ASPs, (ii) DySPs, Principal Secretary Secy.(Home) and Ayukta at state

Annexure - 1

Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks . State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities N &order Board o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6) (Direction No.5) (Law) also. Principal Secy. to Comments respectively for each of A, B (iii) Inspectors, and level. CM. and C category police (iv) SIs and below. 1. Officers may be Comments stations, for investigation PCA not removed “in public 1) Commission not 2) UPSC not work. It, however, adds that Comments constituted on the interest under special ground that it will given authority to lay involved in no additional post shall be 1)The contents of this circumstances”. result in down broad policies, preparation of panel. created for this purpose, letter indicate that the “multiplicity of will only lay down 2. Tenure rule is which means that separation Boards would deal “guiding principles” being violated rather would be on paper only. forum creating 3) Tenure will be “as only with transfers too frequently in confusion in the far as possible” two Comments and not with other 2) Will give only actual practice. minds of public”. years including service-related “suggestions” and not 1. Govt. has passed on the superannuation. This matters envisaged in directions for buck to DGP; he cannot is contrary to Court‟s the Supreme Court preventive tasks and ensure separation unless direction. directive. The Boards service-oriented Home Dept. sanctions are also not functions. 4) DGP may be augmentation of staff. authorized to function

removed “in the 2. Govt. says there is lack of as a forum of appeal 3) Independent public interest” for police officers members are ex- manpower and which could be infrastructure. being subjected to officio and. therefore, subjectively illegal or irregular cannot be considered interpreted. orders, or to generally independent. review the functioning of the 4) Commission will State police. There is not “function no mention also that independent of Govt. the State Government 1) control”, as was may interfere with directed by Supreme the decisions of the Court. Board only in exceptional cases and 5) No indication that after recording its recommendations of reasons for doing so. Commission will be binding 2) Vide another letter No.550/6-P-10- 27(45)/06 dated 6) Commission has yet to hold a meeting. 08.04.2010 of Principal Secretary,

Annexure - 1

Establishment Boards were ordered to be constituted also for intra-Range and intra- District transfers of officers of and below the rank of Inspector. The jurisdiction of the Board, however, excludes the posting / transfers of officers posted / to be posted as officers incharge of Police Stations, for which concurrence of District Magistrate is prescribed. 3) The functions of these Range and District-level Boards too are limited to transfers only and do not cover the other components of the Supreme Court directive. 4) GO dated 26.12.10 constitutes a State level Estt Board to recommend transfer/posting of officers of and above rank of Addl SP.

Annexure - 1

11 West A Government The Government of The West Bengal Commissioner of Police, The Government of The Government of West Bengal Bengal Notification issued in West Bengal, Home Government, Home Kolkata, vide his order West Bengal, Home West Bengal, vide Police Bill was 2010 notifying the Department, issued a Department issued a No.46 dated 15.02.2008, Department, vide its Notification drafted in 2007 constitution of the letter (No.381 PS letter (No.382-PS formed separate their letter No.383- No.2162-PL/PE- but was not West Bengal State dated 30.03.2007) dated 30.03.2007) investigation wings in ten PS dated 30.03.2007 16S-36/05 dated tabled. A new Security addressed to DGP, addressed to DGP, Police Stations under constituted a West 02.06.2010, Bill is Commission, with WB and CP, Kolkata, West Bengal and Kolkata Police Bengal Police constituted a State reportedly one year as its term intimating the Commissioner of Commissionerate area; and Establishment Board, Level Complaints being drafted. of appointment. “principles to be Police Kolkata, DGP, WB, vide his order and a separate Authority. followed for the laying down the No.05 dated 29.04.2010, Kolkata Police Comments selection of DGP and principles to be formed separate Establishment Board. Comments prescribing a followed for the investigation wings in 20 1) Composition does minimum tenure for tenure of police Urban Police Stations, in the Govt. of West Bengal 1) The composition not follow any of the the incumbent. officers on first phase issued another of the Authority three models operational duties in . Notification does not conform Comments mentioned in the the field. Comments (No.1549-P.S. dated to the Supreme Supreme Court order. 1) The zone of 14.11.2009) Court directive. consideration Comments Separation has not been constituting a Kolkata The Authority 2) The Commission includes four senior- effected so far in the Police Establishment sought to be is to be headed by the most officers of the 1) Conditions for remaining 38 Police Stations Board created by West Health Minister, not State cadre, instead of premature removal of of Kolkata city. Bengal by the Chief Minister three. officers (before the Comments Government is to

who incidentally expiry of two-year be a five-member holds the Home 2) The order is silent tenure) include vague 1) The orders in body with three of portfolio himself. about empanelment and subjective respect of setting up them being serving

Annexure - 1

4) The tenure of two to misuse. representations from Supreme Court years is subject to police officers on directive, the

superannuation service matters (other Authority is than transfers / required to be postings) and on their headed by a retired being subjected to Judge of the illegal or irregular Supreme Court / orders. High Court and it should have 3 to 5

non-officials as members, depending on the volume of complaints in the State. They have to be selected from out of a panel of names suggested by the State Human Rights Commission / Lokayukta / State Public Service Commission.

3) The term of the

Annexure - 1

4) No order regarding the constitution of the District-level Complaints Authorities has been issued so far.

12 Delhi & Order constituting SSC 1) Union Govt. is not Union Govt. agrees The order is claimed to have Boards have been set Notification Police Act Union for all UTs (except in favour of involving that senior level been implemented in Delhi. up in all the UTs “as No.14040/45/2009- Drafting Territories Delhi) issued on UPSC in preparing police functionaries per availability of UTP dated – March Committee 07.02.2013. the panel of officers should have a officers in a 2010) provides for headed by Soli for selection of DGP. minimum tenure of particular UT”. the constitution of Sorabjee had There will be separate two years but only Police Complaints drafted Model SSC for every UT 2) Govt. also does not Govt. does not favour “as far as possible”. Authorities (PCAs) Police Act in (except Delhi) with favour a fixed tenure Board being given for Delhi and all the 2006. However, Union Home Secretary and is opposed to appellate functions. Union Territories. Delhi Police as Chairman. giving that Bill has yet to irrespective of 1) GOI has set up Comments be passed. superannuation on the Public Grievance 1) SSC for UTs are ground that it would Commission for A Bill was dominated by Govt. have legal and Delhi and PCA in drafted by the representatives. There administrative all UTs. MHA in 2010 is only one repercussions. for Delhi. PGC, through Govt. independent member, Consultations Resolution, has other members being were held and, been designated as Home Secretary, Chief another draft PCA for NCT of Secy / Administrator was prepared, Delhi. and Joint Secretary but there is no

Annexure - 1

Annexure II

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on August 1, 2016) (In States which have passed Police Acts)

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)

1. Assam The Act [Sections 34 Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Constituted [Sections Assam State & 35] provides for a 6]. 12(3)]. 55]. 44]. 70, 72, 78 & 84]. Police Act,

Commission. 2007 - in force Comments Comments Comments Comments Comments from 18.09.07. Comments 1) Tenure of only Mechanics of Board not authorized 1) Methodology of 1) Selection to be State Govt. 1) Leader of one year implementation not to: selection of made from amongst 5 have said that, opposition not spelt out. chairpersons and senior most officers 2) Limited to only 1) Recommend in the light of included in the members not spelt (not three). District SPs and postings / transfers of observations composition. out. 2) Empanelment for SHOs Addl. SP & above. made by the 2) Method of selection 2) Recommendations Thomas the post to be done by 3) Removal clauses 2) Review of non-official not binding on the Committee, State Security include „public police performance. members to ensure concerned authorities. State Govt. Commission, not interest‟, „any that the Commission have decided to UPSC. contingency, is able to function revisit the 3) Minimum tenure of which are liable to independent of the Assam Police only 1 year, and also misuse. government control, Act to make it subject to not spelt out in the conform to the superannuation. Act. directions of 4) Removal clauses Supreme Court. 3) Will not evaluate include „inefficiency‟ police performance „negligence‟, 4) Report not required „misdemeanour, to be placed before the „public interest‟, all State legislature. liable to misuse.

5) DGP can be

removed without

consulting Staff

Security Commission.

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) Bihar Police 2 Bihar The Act [Section 23] For the selection of Section 10 provides The Act [Section 10] The Act [Section 59] The Act [Section 36] Act 2007 was provides for setting up DGP, the Act [Section for a minimum tenure provides for the provides for the provides for the passed by State. a State Police Board, 6] prescribes of two years for creation of Transfer constitution of a constitution of „Special “within six months of “appointment from officers of the ranks of Committees (Police “District Investigation Units‟. State has the Act coming into out of a panel of Constables to Establishment Boards) Accountability defiantly force”. officers who are either Inspectors. for officers of the Authority”, for each Comments recorded that already working in the ranks of Constables to district. Comments Section 30 provides a Courts have not rank of DGP or are Inspectors. tenure (“generally”, 1) These units will take Comments been conferred 1) The composition found suitable for not minimum) of 2 up investigations only Comments with powers to of the Board (Section promotion to the rank 1) There is no years for supervisory of specified crimes make policy 24) does not conform of DGP” by a 1) For higher ranks of provision for a State- police officers. instead of all crimes, decisions. to any of the three Committee constituted District SPs, Range level Complaints many of which will models suggested by under the provision of Comments DIGs and Zonal IGs, Authority. continue to be the Supreme Court. It AIS Rules, 1961. there is no Board Act has been 1) Conditions for investigated into by the 2) The district-level is a three-member (all Empanelment of provided for. transfers challenged at premature removal law & order staff. Authorities, in their officials) body of officers by the UPSC and postings of these state level. include subjective composition, do not which the Chief or any other officers will, thus, be considerations, such 2) The provision, thus, conform to the Secretary is the independent body is governed by rules as incapacitation for does not fully satisfy Supreme Court chairman, the DGP a not required. framed by the “any other reasons” or the Supreme Court directive. Instead of Member and the Government from Comments “administrative direction. being headed by a Home Secretary, the time to time. grounds”, which are retired District Judge, Member-Secretary. 1) The criteria for subject to misuse. 2) Even the their Chairpersons will empanelment is also 2) Its Need to fill vacancies Committees be the District not spelt out. recommendations are “caused by transfers” constituted under Magistrates concerned. not binding on the 2) The minimum is also violative of the Section 10 of the Act 3) The other members Government. tenure of two years is Supreme Court will deal with only are also all officials also not made guidelines. transfers and postings, 3) Its report is not with no representation mandatory. It will and not with other required to be placed of non-officials. only “generally” be service-related before the State so, not necessarily. matters. 4) The Legislature. recommendations of 3) Conditions for 3) Those are not the Authorities will not premature removal of “departmental be binding on the DGP include bodies”, in their administrative subjective composition. authorities concerned. considerations, such 4) They are not also as incapacitation for

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) “any other reasons” authorized to act as and “administrative forums of appeal for grounds”, which are disposing of subject to misuse. representations from police officers regarding service matters or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders. 5) They are not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.

3 Provides for the Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh constitution of a State 12]. 14]. 32] the creation of 22]. 38 to 43]. Police Act Police Commission “Special Crime legislated – Comments Comments Comments Comments [Sections 16]. Investigation Units” Notified on 1) It is silent about 1) Provision limited to 1) The functions are 1) Only a State-level 28.09.07 Comments Comments empanelment of SHOs and District advisory and Police Accountability 1) The composition officers by UPSC SPs. No provision for 1) No specific recommendatory in Authority. does not fully minimum tenure of provision for respect of transfers / 2) Provision implies 2) No provision for conform to any of the two years for IG in- separation at the postings of DySPs. that the two year constituting district- three models charge of Zone, or police station level in tenure is subject to 2) Intra-District and level Authorities. suggested by the SC, DIG in-charge of urban areas. superannuation. intra-Range transfers in that the Leader of Range. 3) No provision for of even subordinate the Opposition is not 3) Silent about selection of the head 2) Removal clauses ranks (Inspector and included as a Member. consultation with SSC of State-level include below) do not fall in There is no judicial before removing the Authority (a retired “administrative the purview of the element also included DGP. Judge) out of a panel exigencies” which is Board. as a Member. of names proposed by 4) Removal clauses prone to misuse. 3) No provision that the Chief Justice of 2) The Commission is include the State Government the High Court. given only advisory “administrative shall interfere with the role in its functions. exigencies” which are 4) Similarly, no decisions of the Board liable to misuse. provision for 3) Its reports are not in only exceptional

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) required to be put cases, after recording obtaining a panel of up before the State its reasons for doing names from the State Legislature. so. HRC / Lokayukta / State PSC for 4) No provision selection of other authorizing the Board members of the to make appropriate Authority. recommendations to the State Govt. 5) Recommendations regarding posting and of the Authority are transfers of officers of not binding on the and above the rank of administrative SP. authorities concerned. 5) No mention of review of the functioning of State Police.

4 Gujarat Provides for the Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Sections constitution of a SSC 5A]. 5B]. 7A]. 32 D]. 32F, G, H & I]. Bombay Police [Section 32A]. Comments Comments Comments Comments Comments (Gujarat) Comments 1) No empanelment Amendment 1) Tenure is two years 1) Leaves the 1) The Board is not an 1) Composition of the by the UPSC. Instead, Act legislated – 1) Its composition ordinarily. The word decision about entirely departmental Authorities different it will be done by a Notified on does not comply with „ordinarily‟ is separation completely body, as envisaged in from the SC direction Screening Committee 23.03.08 any of the models violative of the SC at the State the SC direction. of the State 2) District Authorities suggested by SC, in direction. Government‟s Government. 2) The power of the have District SP as that the Leader of the discretion. 2) Some clauses for Board with regard to the Chairman instead Opposition in the 2) The zone of premature removal 2) Mechanics of transfers / postings is of a retired District State Assembly is not consideration is not include subjective separation not spelt limited to the rank of Judge. included as a member. limited to three elements, which could out. Inspector and Sub- There is no judicial officers. 3) No provision for be prone to misuse. Inspector only. element also included. 3) Selection criteria obtaining a panel of Also, the number of laid down by the 3) No mention that the names for the government Supreme Court State Govt. may chairmanship of the functionaries (5) far ignored. interfere with the district-level outweighs the number decisions of the Board Authorities from the 4) Tenure of DGP

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) of non-officials (2). will be „ordinarily‟ 2 in exceptional cases Chief Justice of the years irrespective of only, after recording High Court. 2) Role is only his date of its reasons for doing advisory in laying 4) There is no non- superannuation, but so. down policy official member the use of the word guidelines. 4) The Board is not to included in the „ordinarily‟ is function as a forum of district-level 3) Does not have the violative of the SC appeal for disposing Authorities. On the power to make direction. of representations other hand, two binding 5) Some removal from officers MLAs have been recommendations. clauses include regarding their included. 4) Annual report is not subjective elements, promotion / transfer 5) The State-level required to be placed which could be prone etc. or their being Authority could be before the Legislature; to misuse. subjected to illegal or headed by either a it has only to be irregular orders. 6) No provision for retired High Court submitted to the State consultation with 5) The Board is not Judge or a retired Government „for State Security authorized to Principal Secretary to consideration and Commission before generally review the the Government. The appropriate action‟. removing the DGP functioning of State serving Principal from the post. Police. Secretary, Home and

a police officer of or above the rank of ADGP will also be member of the Authorities. 6) Recommendations of the State and the District-level Authorities are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.

Haryana Police 5 Haryana Sections 25, 26 and 30 Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Act legislated – deal with composition 6]. 13]. 43] creation of 34], the creation of a 68] for the Notified on and functions of State specialized Crime Police Establishment constitution of a 02.06.08

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) Police Board. Comments Comments Investigation Units. Committee for District Police Haryana Police „administrative Complaint Authority (Amendment) Comments 1) Specific criteria for 1) The tenure of an Comments matters‟ . for each district “as Bill 2014 selection not IGP of a Range or SP 1) Members will 1) Units only at and when required”. provides for enumerated and role of a District is only Comments include either a Retd. district level, for the district level of UPSC ignored in one year, instead of High Court Judge or investigation of only 1) Does not specify Also provides for PCAs. the selection. two years. the Advocate General economic and heinous whether or not it will [Section 59] for 2) Tenure is only for 2) No fixed tenure crimes. have powers to decide establishing a Police 2) The functions of one year, instead of provided for other transfers, postings, Complaints Authority the Board are to only 2) All other two years. officers on operational promotions and other at the State level, „aid and advise‟ the crimes will continue to duties in the field. service-related State Government. 3) Selected DGP can be investigated by the matters of police Comments be removed without 3) Grounds for police handling law 3) No mention that the officers. consultation with premature removal and order also. report on the Board on 1) Composition of the State Police Board. include the need to fill 2) No provision to performance of the district-level up a vacancy caused make appropriate State police will be Authorities is not by promotion, transfer recommendations to placed before the specified in the Act. or retirement of any the State Government State legislature. other officer, which is regarding posting and 2) Composition of violative of the spirit transfers of officers of State-level Authority of the Supreme Court and above the rank of is not in consonance direction. SP with Court‟s 3) The Police directives. Establishment 3) The State-level Committee is not Authority will be authorized to act as a headed by either a forum of appeal or retired Judge or a disposing of retired Secretary to representations from Government or a police officers lawyer with 20 years regarding transfer / of experience in postings etc. or their criminal law. (State being subjected to level PCA constituted illegal or irregular vide notification dated orders. 16.8.2010 is headed 4) It is also not by a retired IAS authorized to officer).

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) generally review the 4) Recommendations functioning of the of the Authority are State Police. not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.

6 Himachal Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for creation Creation provided for Himachal Pradesh 48] a State Police 6]. 12]. 78] creation of a of a State Police [Sections 93, 94 & Pradesh Police Board. criminal investigation Establishment 95]. Comments Comments Act, 2007 was unit in every police Committee [Section Comments Comments passed. 1) No role for UPSC 1) Minimum tenure station for 56]. 1) Composition does assigned in the rule not made investigation of only 1) The composition of Comments not conform to any of selection process. applicable to Zonal “serious offences‟. the State-level Police the models IGPs and Range 1) The Committee is Complaints Authority 2) Act provides for a recommended by the DIGs. authorized to approve is not in accordance „Screening Supreme Court. Comments postings and transfers with the direction of Committee‟ headed 2) Removal clauses “with the prior the SC. 2) There is no judicial by the Chief Secretary include 1)It will not amount to approval of the element in the to prepare panel for „administrative partial separation of 2) The Act does not Government”. composition. the selection of DGP. exigencies in the investigation from law specify the powers of larger public interest‟ and order functions, as 2) No provision for the State-level 3) The number of 3) No minimum which is prone to be bulk of crime will the Committee to act Authority, leaving officials (10) far tenure provided. misused. continue to be as forum of appeal for them to be “as may be outweighs the number 4) Removal clauses investigated by law disposing of prescribed”. of independent include and order police. representations of numbers (3). 3) The District-level „administrative police officers Authorities also, in exigencies in the regarding service their composition, will larger public interest‟ matters other than be different from that which is prone to be transfers, or their envisaged in the misused. being subjected to Supreme Court illegal or irregular 5) Act is silent about directive. They will be orders. consultation with the headed by the State Police Board 3) Also the Divisional before the DGP is Committee is not Commissioners, with removed from the authorized to non-official members post. generally review the who will all be retired functioning of State

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)

Police. officials. 4) District-level Authorities is not authorized to itself inquire into any allegations of misconduct by police officers. 5) The recommendations of the District-level Authorities will not be binding on the administrative authority concerned. Commission has been DGP will be selected Officers on Every police station Board constituted. Authorities Karnataka 7. Karnataka constituted. by State Govt. High operational duties will have two units, constituted. Police Power Committee given fixed tenure of one dealing with Comments (Amendment) Comments comprising Home one year.. crime investigation Comments Act, 2012, Minister, Law and other dealing with 1. It will have only 1. District Authority is received assent 1. It has no Minister, Chief Comments law & order. three senior police headed by Regional of Governor on independent members Secretary and 1. Tenure is of one officers as against Commissioner and not August 8, 2012. from civil society. Principal Secretary, year only. Comments four recommended by by Retd. District and DPAR. DGP will have Court. Sessions Judge. 2. It is heavily tilted in tenure of not less than 1. SP has been 2. No mention of favour of Govt. and two years. authorized to divert Board functioning as 2. SP is member of will therefore not be Comments these officers. forum of appeal. District Authority. He able to function may not have time for “independent of Govt. 1. UPSC not given 2. No clear indication this job. control”. any role in preparation that there would be of panel. augmentation in staff 3. No indication that 2. Tenure is not to facilitate recommendations of irrespective of separation. Authorities will be superannuation. binding.

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) Constituted under Section 18 of Act Section 97 of Act Separation provided Board constituted Authorities Kerala Police 8. Kerala Sections 24/25 of the provides for selection gives min. tenure to for in Section 23 has under Section 105. constituted under Act 2011 was Act. and appointment of DGP and other been sanctioned in Section 110 of the Act passed. DGP. officers on field Kochi, Comments were reconstituted

Later, Govt. duties. Thiruvananthapuram vide GO dated constituted SSC vide Comments and Kozhikode. 1. It has no powers to 17.2.12. GO issued on decide transfer

26.11.2011 1. It does not give any Proposal to extend the /posting of officers of Comments

role to UPSC in same in other districts and below the rank of

preparation of panel. under consideration Dy.SP. 1. Authorities have presence of serving 2. DGP‟s tenure is 2. Not authorized to police officers and

subject to make bureaucrats – not

superannuation. recommendations envisaged in the

regarding posting/ Court‟s directions.

transfer of officers of and above rank of SP.

3. Appellate authority

is limited to officers

of and below rank of

Inspector.

9. Maharashtra Maharashtra Police DGP shall be selected Police personnel shall Act is vague on this Two PEBs constituted Complaint Authorities Maharashtra (Amendment and by State Govt. from have a normal tenure point. It merely says at state-level, one at set up at State/District Police Continuance ) Act, amongst four senior- of two years. that local Crime Range level and a levels. (Amendment 2014 constitutes SSC most police officers Branch and Detection fourth one at and Comments Comments on Sorabjee model. from the cadre. and Investigation Commissionerate Continuance) 1) Government has, Cells in each police level. 1) No provision of Act, 2014 Comments Comments however, retained the station shall panel for selection of promulgated on Comments 1) Additional Chief 1) Role of UPSC in power of mid-term concentrate on Chairperson of 25.06.2014 Secretary (Home) also preparation of panel transfer of officers in investigation of 1) State level Board Division level PCA.

included in SSC; not recognized. public interest and in crimes and shall not headed by Addl.CS 2) Composition of administrative be entrusted with law is contrary to 2) Five non-official 2) Tenure is subject to Authorities not in exigencies. These and order, security Court‟s directions,

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) members will be superannuation. could be misused. and other duties which mandated it keeping with Court‟s nominated by State ordinarily. to be a directions.

Government. They “departmental Comments 3) State Govt. has the may not show required body”. power to reject the degree of objectivity; 1) The separation 2) At the state level, report of the State arrangement for crime 3) Recommendations there should be only Police Complaints work from L/O is of SSC will be one Board. Authority. Court‟s weak and would apply advisory in nature. direction was that “ordinarily”. 3) Powers of DGP PCA curtailed by 2) Without additional recommendations Ordinance. staff, separation will should be binding. be on paper only. 4) Board not given State Govt had earlier power to review taken the stand that

functioning of recommendation of police in the State. “any Authority” can never be binding on 5) State Govt. has State Government, power to give and that such a overriding directions direction is which will be binding “inconsistent with and on the Board. contrary to the procedure laid down by the Constitution” 4) There are provisions which could unduly penalize complainants.

State Security Section 6 of Act deals Field Officers given State has no City Board constituted. State level Meghalaya 10. Meghalaya Commission dealt with selection/tenure tenure of two years. having population of Accountability Police Act, with in Section 36 of of DGP,. more than ten lakhs. Comments Commission set up. 2010 notified on Act 1. Board does not Comments 7.2.2011. Comments have authority to Comments decide transfer 1) .No mention of 1. UPSC not given /postings of junior District level 1. Commission is role in preparing panel officers. It can only Authority.

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) heavily tilted in “recommend”. favour of govt. 2. DGP given tenure of one year only 2. Review Committee 2. There is no judicial will make element. 3. He may be shifted recommendations in “public interest” about transfer/ posting 3. Recommendations of officers of the rank shall be binding “to of IG/ Addl. DG. the extent feasible”. 3. Appellate Authority of Board will be subject to Review Committee headed by Chief Secy.

Constituted . Notification issued Notification issued Exemption sought in Constituted State level Authority Mizoram Police 11. Mizoram (DGP is appointed by view of thin provided for under Act, 2011 Comments MHA) population of State Section 101, District passed on Dec. Level under Section 19, 2011. However, composition Comments 114. is not as per notification. No Tenure is not Comments judicial element. irrespective of superannuation. 1) State Level Authority has no independent members.

2) District Level Authority‟s composition differs from Court‟s directions. Punjab Police 12. Punjab Constituted [Section Provides for [Sections Provides for [Section Complied. Constituted [Section Created [Section 54] Act, 2007 – in 27(2)]. 6(1) & 6(2). 15(1)]. 32(1)]. for both the State and [Section 36(1)] force from District levels PCAs, Comments Comments Comments Comments 20.02.08 Implemented in five

1) It does not adhere 1) Zone of 1) Police officers on districts, vide letter 1) The Board not

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) +to any of the three consideration is not operational duties are dated 7.4.2007. authorized to make Comments Punjab & models suggested by limited to three senior- only assured one Process being recommendations on Haryana High Their composition the Supreme Court. most officers. year‟s minimum expanded. postings/ transfers of Court directed /functions are not tenure, „extendable to officers of the rank of State Govt. in 2) Composed of only 2) Silent on the specified. a maximum period of SP and above. Sept. 2013 to government empanelment as also three years”. set up District functionaries. There the selection criteria. 2) No provision also PCAs within are no independent for the Board to 3) The minimum three months in members on the function as a forum of tenure of two years is response to a Board, nor a sitting or appeal for disposing subject to petition. retired judge or the of representations superannuation. Leader of Opposition. from officers 4) DGP can be regarding their 3) Recommendations removed prematurely promotion, transfer or are not binding on the “for special reasons, to their being subjected State Government. be recorded in writing” to illegal or irregular orders. 5) Consultation with State Security Commission for the removal of DGP not required.

13. Rajasthan Provides for [Sections Provides for [Section Complied. Provides for [Section Constituted [Section Provides for [Section Rajasthan 21, 22 & 26]. 13]. 42] creation of a 28]. 62 & 63]. Police Act, [Sections 14, 15, 16, separate Crime 2007 – Notified Comments Comments 17 & 19] Comments Comments Investigation Unit in on 01.11.07 1) The role of the 1) The Act omits the each Police Station. 1) The Board will 1) There are variations Commission is sought provision for only prescribe from the Supreme Comments to be limited only to empanelment of guidelines for transfer Court direction in the „advising‟ and officers by UPSC. 1) Leaves the of subordinate ranks, composition of „assisting‟ the State discretion to the State with the approval of District and State 2) The parameters for Government. Government which the State Government, Police Accountability empanelment are also may decide it from not decide on transfer Committees. 2) The composition not specified. time to time. / postings as such. does not conform to 2) The Committees 3) Silent about any of the models 2) Crime Investigation 2) The Board are not to be headed consultation with noted in the SC Units in a authorized only to by judicial members. State Security metropolitan area prepare proposals for

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) direction. Commission before shall be established transfers of Addl. SPs, 3) The selection of removing the DGP. within “a period not not of SPs and other Members of both the 3) There is no judicial exceeding five years senior officers. State and District- element included in from the notification level Authorities, is the Commission. 3) No provision for of a metropolitan left entirely to the the Board to function 4) An officer not area”. discretion of the State as a forum of appeal below the rank of Government – not for disposing of ADGP is made from out of panels to representations from Member-Secretary of be prepared in officers on service the Commission, accordance with the matters including their instead of DGP. Supreme Court‟s being subjected to direction. 5) Commission not illegal or irregular constituted yet. orders. 4) The recommendations of 4) Not to undertake a the Authorities are not review of police binding on the functioning. concerned authority. The Committees are authorized only to make recommendations. 5) PCAs yet to be constituted.

14. Sikkim Provides for DGP to be selected by Notification dated Provides for Section 52 of Act Provides for [Sections Sikkim Police constitution [Sections a Screening 28.12.2006 provides separation [Section provides for PEB 132, 133, 138, 140 & Act legislated –

39, 40 & 41],. Committee two year tenure to IG, 97] by creating a headed by DGP and 141] a State-level Notified on comprising Chief SP and SHO Special Crime comprising three other Police Complaints 30.07.08 Comments Secretary, Addl.Chief Investigation Unit at senior police officers. Authority only in Section 11 of Act 1) In its composition, Secretary (Plg) and PS level in such view of small size of provides two year Comments the official members Principal Secretary crime-prone areas or the State and low tenure to SP and SHO. constitute a large (Personnel) under urban areas as 1) The transfers / volume of complaints majority. [Section 6]. Comments “considered postings of DySPs are Comments necessary”. kept out of the Comments: 1) Provisions such as Committee‟s purview. 1. Recommendations „suspension from 1) UPSC‟s role in the of the Authority are service‟, and 2) The Committee is

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) empanelment process „administrative also not authorized to not to be binding on ignored. exigencies in larger function as a forum of the administrative public interest‟, are appeal for disposing authority concerned. 2) The tenure of DGP prone to misuse. of representations is subject to from police officers superannuation. regarding service 3) The DGP could be matters other than removed prematurely transfers / postings, without consultation and regarding their with the State Security being subjected to Commission. illegal or irregular orders. 4) Provisions such as „suspension from service‟, and „administrative exigencies in larger public interest‟, are prone to misuse. SSC constituted, vide DGP will be selected Officers incharge Section 9 of Act Act provides for 15. Tamil Nadu Complaints Tamil Nadu sections 5 & 6 of the from panel prepared police station, SP i/c provides for several tiers of Authority Police Act. by UPSC and will District and separation in every Establishment Boards (Reforms) Act have tenure of two Commissioner of police station except – one for officers of established at 2013 Comments years. Police will have those specifically the rank of SP and State and District promulgated on tenure of two years. designated as Crime above upto the rank of levels. Sept. 11, 2013. 1. Composition does Comments Police Stations. IG only, another for not follow any of officers of and below 1. Grounds for Comments three models the rank of Addl. SP premature removal prescribed by Court. Comments and Boards at Zonal, include “other Range, City and 1. Authorities are administrative 2. SSC has 1. Act is silent about District Levels. headed by grounds to be Chairpersons of Tamil tenure of DIG i/c recorded in writing.” bureaucrats at Nadu Public Service Range or IG i/c Zone. Comments This could be both levels – by Commission, State misused. Human Rights 1. DGP alone (and not Home Secretary at 2. Officers may be Commission, State PEB) will send state level and transferred on Women‟s proposals for officers Collector / DM at 2. Court had wanted “administrative

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) Commission, State UPSC to prepare grounds to be of and above the rank district level. Minorities panel of three. Act recorded in writing.” of IGP. Direction was that Commission as provides for panel of members. They are all five officers. 2. Not clear that they should be ex-officio members, Intention appears to recommendations of headed by retired are government be to give more PEB will be given Judges. nominees and latitude to CM. “due weight” by the therefore cannot be Government, which considered should normally 2. Authorities will independent. accept them. make “recommendations 3. Not clear that 3. Composition and ” to state recommendations of functions of Police government for the Commission will Establishment appropriate action. be binding. Committees at Zonal, Range, City and Direction was that District levels have these should be not been clarified. binding on state 4. Board has not been government. given power to generally review the functioning of police in this State.

16. Tripura Provides for a State Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Sections Provides for a Police Provides for [Sections Tripura Police Police Board, 6]. 11]. 50-55] separation of Establishment 59] only one Police Act, 2007 is in

[[Sections 20]. Comments Comments investigation Committee [Section Accountability force from functions . 27],. Commission for the 07.04.2009. Comments 1) No role of UPSC in 1) Minimum tenure entire State. Comments 1) Its composition empanelment of not applicable to IGPs Comments Comments does not comply with officers. incharge of Zones and 1) No specific any of the models DIGs incharge of provision for not 1) It does not specify 1) No provision for 2) No empanelment Ranges. suggested by SC, in by any other body diverting the that the Committee District-level that the Leader of the also. 2) Ground of personnel of crime shall decide all Complaints Opposition is not „suspension from units to law and order transfers, postings and Authorities. included. 3) Tenure is subject to duties. other service-related service‟ is prone to 2) No provision for

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) 2) Recommendations superannuation. misuse. matters of police choosing the of the Board are not officers of and below Chairperson from out 4) DGP can be 3) Ground of binding. the rank of DySP. of a panel of names removed without „inefficiency or proposed by the Chief 3) Report of the Board consultation with the negligence prima- 2) No provision for Justice of the High is not required to be State Police Board. facie established after the Committee to act Court. placed before the a preliminary enquiry‟ 5) Ground of as a forum of appeal State Legislature not found in the SC 3) No provision also “suspension from for disposing of directive. for selection of service” is prone to complaints from members from a panel misuse. police officers of names prepared by 6) Ground regarding their being the State Human of„inefficiency or subjected to illegal Rights Commission / negligence prima- orders. It has only to Lok Ayukta / State facie established after make appropriate Public Service a preliminary enquiry‟ recommendations to Commission. not found in the SC the competent directive. The nature authority in such 5) No provision of such a preliminary cases. specifying that the enquiry has not been recommendations of spelt out in the Act. 3) No provision also the Commission shall for the Committee to be binding on the

review the functioning administrative of the State Police. authorities concerned.

17. Uttarakhand Provides for a State Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Uttarakhand Police Board [Section 20]. 28]. 50] creation of special 38]. 64], State-level PCA. Police Act 2007 29]. crime investigation Comments Comments Comments Comments – in force from units for police district Comments 04.01.08 1) Does not provide 1) The tenure of or police stations. 1) State Government 1) The Act is silent 1) There is no judicial for selection of DGP officer in charge of given broad about constituting element in the from a panel of names Police Station is overriding power over Police Complaints composition of the prepared by the limited to a minimum decisions of the Police Authorities at the Board. UPSC. Instead, it of one year instead of Establishment District level. stipulates a „screening two years. Committee. However, 2) The number of 2) The State-level committee‟ the Government has to official functionaries 2) The proviso of Authority is not to be „constituted by the record its reasons for in the Board transferring any police headed by a retired State Government‟, to

Annexure II

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities law &order

(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6) outweighs the number prepare a panel of officer from his post doing so. Judge of the High of non-official / officers for selection before expiry of Court /Supreme 2) It is not authorized independent members. as DGP. tenure „in public Court, to be selected to function as a forum interest‟ is prone to be from out of a panel of 3) The Act stipulates 2) The tenure of DGP of appeal for misused. names proposed by that the Board‟s as 2 years is subject to disposing of the Chief Justice. functions are simply superannuation. representations from to provide police officers 3) Similarly, the 3) Premature removal „suggestions‟ and regarding service members are not possible without „advice‟ to the State matters or their being required to be selected consultation with Government. subject to illegal or from out of a panel of SSC. irregular orders. names prepared by the 4) Its 4) Premature removal State Human Rights recommendations are 3) It is also not is possible for „gross Commission / Lok not binding. authorised to review inefficiency and Ayukta / State Public the functioning of the . negligence‟ where Service Commission. State Police. prima facie a case of 4) The serious nature has recommendations of been established after the Authority are not a preliminary enquiry. binding on the The nature of such a administrative preliminary enquiry authorities concerned has not been outlined in the Act.