Let’s start with the first question that “What are Police Reforms?”

Police reforms aim to transform the values, culture, policies, and practices of police organizations so that police can perform their duties with respect for democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law and also aims to improve how the police interact with other parts of the security sector, such as the courts and departments of corrections, or executive, parliamentary or independent authorities with management or oversight responsibilities. Under the Constitution, the police is a subject governed by states. Therefore, each of the 29 states has its own police force.  The center is also allowed to maintain its own police forces to assist the states with ensuring law and order. Therefore, it maintains seven central police forces and some other police organizations for specialized tasks such as intelligence gathering, investigation, research and record-keeping, and training. 

The primary Duty/role of police forces is to uphold and enforce laws, investigate crimes and ensure security for people in the country The Secondary Duty/role of police forces is to Police involved in the VVIP movement. But we have seen the primary duty of police becomes secondary and vice-versa because of police and political connections and interference. In a large and populous country like India, police forces need to be well-equipped, in terms of personnel, weaponry, forensic, communication, and transport support, to perform their role well.  Further, they need to have the operational freedom to carry out their responsibilities professionally, and satisfactory working conditions (e.g., regulated working hours and promotion opportunities), while being held accountable for poor performance or misuse of power. 

This report provides an overview of police organizations in India and highlights key issues that affect their functioning.  Note that the Standing Committee on Home Affairs is also examining two subjects related to the organization and functioning of central and state police forces: (i) “Roadmap for implementation of Police Reforms”, and (ii) “Central Armed Police Forces/ Organizations". 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF CENTRE AND STATES

The Constitution provides for a legislative and executive division of powers between the center and states.  With regard to police, some of the key matters regulated by centre and states....

Responsibilities of center and states with regard to police:

Sources: Schedule 7 and Article 355, Constitution of India, 1950; PRS. The responsibilities of the state and central police forces are different.  State police forces are primarily in charge of local issues such as crime prevention and investigation and maintaining law and order.  While they also provide the first response in case of more intense internal security challenges (e.g., terrorist incidents or insurgency-related violence), the central forces are specialized in dealing with such conflicts.  For example, the Central Reserve Police Force is better trained to defuse large-scale riots with the least damage to life and property, as compared to local police.  Further, the central forces assist the defense forces with border protection. 

The center is responsible for policing in the seven union territories.  It also extends intelligence and financial support to the state police forces. 

SOME ISSUES :

Expert bodies have examined police reforms. Various expert bodies have examined issues with police organization and functioning over the last few decades. In this section, we discuss some of these issues. 

1  Police accountability :

Police forces have the authority to exercise force to enforce laws and maintain law and order in a state.  However, this power may be misused in several ways.  For example, in India, various kinds of complaints are made against the police including complaints of unwarranted arrests, unlawful searches, torture, and custodial rapes. To check against such abuse of power, various countries have adopted safeguards, such as accountability of the police to the political executive, internal accountability to senior police officers, and independent police oversight authorities. 

Accountability to the political executive vs operational freedom

Both the central and state police forces come under the control and superintendence of the political executive (i.e., central or state government).  The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) has noted that this control has been abused in the past by the political executive to unduly influence police personnel, and have them serve personal or political interests. This interferes with professional decision-making by the police (e.g., regarding how to respond to law and order situations or how to conduct investigations), resulting in the biased performance of duties.

To allow the police greater operational freedom while ensuring accountability, various experts have recommended that the political executive’s power of superintendence over police forces be limited.  The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended that this power be limited to promoting professional efficiency and ensuring that police is acting in accordance with the law.  Alternatively, the National Police Commission (1977-81) suggested that superintendence be defined in the law to exclude instructions that interfere with due process of law, that influence operational decisions, or that unlawfully influence police personnel transfers, recruitments etc.  The Supreme Court has also issued directions to states and the center in 2006 in this regard.

Directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh vs Union of India: In 1996, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court that raised various instances of abuse of power by the police, and alleged that police personnel performs their duties in a politically partisan manner.  The Supreme Court issued its judgment in 2006, ordering the center and states to set up authorities to lay down guidelines for police functioning, evaluate police performance, decide postings and transfers, and receive complaints of police misconduct.  The court also required that minimum tenure of service be guaranteed to key police officers to protect them from arbitrary transfers and postings. 

2  Independent Complaints Authority

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Supreme Court have observed that there is a need to have an independent complaints authority to inquire into cases of police misconduct. This may be because the political executive and internal police oversight mechanisms may favor law enforcement authorities, and not be able to form an independent and critical judgment. 

For example, the United Kingdom has an Independent Office for Police Conduct, comprising of a Director-General appointed by the crown, and six other members appointed by the executive and the existing members, to oversee complaints made against police officers.  Another example is that of the New York City Police which has a Civilian Complaint Review Board comprising of civilians appointed by local government bodies and the police commissioner to investigate cases of police misconduct.

India has some independent authorities that have the power to examine specific kinds of misconduct.  For example, the National or State Human Rights Commission may be approached in case of human rights violations, or the state Lokayukta may be approached with a complaint of corruption. 

However, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission has noted the absence of independent oversight authorities that specialize in addressing all kinds of police misconduct, and are easily accessible. In light of this, under the Model Police Act, 2006 drafted by the Police Act Drafting Committee (2005), and the Supreme Court guidelines (2006), states are required to set up state and district level complaints authorities. 

The Model Police Act 2006 requires state authorities to have five members: a retired High Court Judge, a retired police officer of the rank of DGP from another state cadre, a retired officer with public administration experience from another state, a civil society member, and a person with at least 10 years of experience as a judicial officer or lawyer or legal academic.  It also requires district-level authorities to have retired judges, police officers, practicing lawyers, etc. 

Note that of 35 states and UTs (excluding Telangana), two states had not made laws or issued notifications regarding the setting up of the police complaints authorities (i.e., Jammu and Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh) as of August 2016.  Among the remaining states, some had not set up a state authority, and several had not set up district-level authorities.  A report of the NITI Aayog also shows that the composition of these authorities is at variance with the Model Police Act, 2006, and the Supreme Court directions.  For example, district-level authorities in Bihar and Gujarat only have government and police officials.  Further, in many states complaints, authorities do not have the power to issue binding recommendations.

3  Vacancies and an overburdened force

Currently, there are significant vacancies within the state police forces and some of the central armed police forces.  As of January 2016, the total sanctioned strength of state police forces across India was 22,80,691, with 24% vacancies (i.e. 5,49,025 vacancies).  Vacancies have been around 24%-25% in state police forces since 2009. States with the highest vacancies in 2016 were Uttar Pradesh (50%), Karnataka (36%), West Bengal (33%), Gujarat (32%), and Haryana (31%) (see Table 5 in the Annexure).

In the same year, the total sanctioned strength of the seven central police forces was 9,68,233.  7% of these posts (i.e. 63,556 posts) were however lying vacant.  Sashastra Seema Bal (18%), Central Industrial Security Force (10%), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (9%), and National Security Guards (8%) had relatively high vacancies.  Vacancies in the central police forces have been in the range of 6%-14% since 2007.

Table 3: Strength and vacancies in central armed police forces (as on January 1, 2016)

Sources: Data on Police Organisations 2016, Bureau of Police Research and Development; PRS.

A high percentage of vacancies within the police forces exacerbates an existing problem of overburdened police personnel.  Police personnel discharges a range of functions related to: (i) crime prevention and response (e.g., intelligence collection, patrolling, investigation, production of witnesses in courts), (ii) maintenance of internal security and law and order (e.g., crowd control, riot control, anti-terrorist or anti-extremist operations), and (iii) various miscellaneous duties (e.g., traffic management, disaster rescue and removal of encroachments).  Each police officer is also responsible for a large segment of people, given India’s low police strength per lakh population as compared to international standards.  While the United Nations recommended standard is 222 police per lakh persons, India’s sanctioned strength is 181 police per lakh persons.  After adjusting for vacancies, the actual police strength in India is 137 police per lakh persons.  Therefore, an average policeman ends up having an enormous workload and long working hours, which negatively affects his efficiency and performance.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended that one way to reduce the burden of the police forces could be to outsource or redistribute some non-core police functions (such as traffic management, disaster rescue and relief, and issuing of court summons) to government departments or private agencies. These functions do not require any special knowledge of policing, and therefore may be performed by other agencies.  This will also allow the police forces to give more time and energy to their core policing functions.

4  Constabulary related issues

Qualifications and training:  The constabulary constitutes 86% of the state police forces.  A constable’s responsibilities are wide-ranging and are not limited to basic tasks.  For example, a constable is expected to exercise his own judgment in tasks like intelligence gathering, and surveillance work, and report to his superior officers regarding significant developments.  He assists with investigations and is also the first point of contact for the public.  Therefore, a constable is expected to have some analytical and decision-making capabilities, and the ability to deal with people with tact, understanding and firmness. 

The Padmanabhaiah Committee and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission have noted that the entry-level qualifications (i.e. completion of class 10^th or 12^th in many states) and training of constables do not qualify them for their role.  One of the recommendations made in this regard has been to raise the qualification for entry into the civil police to class 12^th or graduation. It has also been recommended that constables, and the police force in general, should receive greater training in soft skills (such as communication, counseling, and leadership) given they need to deal with the public regularly.  

Promotions and working conditions:  The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has further noted that the promotion opportunities and working conditions of constables are poor, and need to be improved. Generally, a constable in India can expect only one promotion in his lifetime and normally retires as a head constable, which weakens his incentive to perform well.  This system may be contrasted with that in the United Kingdom, where police officers generally start as constables and progress through each rank in order.  Further, in India sometimes superiors employ constables as orderlies to do domestic work, which erodes their morale and motivation and takes them away from their core policing work.  The Commission recommended that the orderly system be abolished across states.

Housing: The importance of providing housing to the constabulary (and generally to the police force) to improve their efficiency and incentive to accept remote postings has also been emphasized by expert bodies, such as the National Police Commission. This is because, in remote and rural areas, private accommodation may not be easily available for rent.  Even in metropolitan areas, rents may be prohibitively high, and adequate accommodation may not be available in the immediate vicinity of the police stations affecting their operational efficiency. 

5  Crime investigation 

A core function of the state police forces and some central police agencies like the CBI is crime investigation.  Once a crime occurs, police officers are required to record the complaint, secure the evidence, identify the culprit, frame the charges against him, and assist with his prosecution in court so that a conviction may be secured.  In India, the crime rate has increased by 28% over the last decade, and the nature of crimes is also becoming more complex (e.g., with the emergence of various kinds of cybercrimes and economic fraud). Conviction rates (convictions secured per 100 cases) however have been fairly low.  In 2015, the conviction rate for crimes recorded under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was 47%. The Law Commission has observed that one of the reasons behind this is the poor quality of investigations.

Crime investigation requires skills and training, time and resources, and adequate forensic capabilities and infrastructure.  However, the Law Commission and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission have noted that state police officers often neglect this responsibility because they are understaffed and overburdened with various kinds of tasks. Further, they lack the training and the expertise required to conduct professional investigations.  They also have insufficient legal knowledge (on aspects like admissibility of evidence) and the forensic and cyberinfrastructure available to them is both inadequate and outdated.  In light of this, police forces may use force and torture to secure evidence.  Further, while criminal investigations need to be fair and unbiased, in India they may be influenced by political or other extraneous considerations.  In light of these aspects, experts have recommended that states must have their own specialized investigation units within the police force that are responsible for crime investigation. These units should not ordinarily be diverted for other duties.

With regard to forensic infrastructure in the country, it may be noted that currently, India has seven Central Forensic Science Laboratories, 30 State Laboratories, 50 Regional Laboratories, and 144 District Mobile Laboratories. These laboratories conduct scientific analysis of ballistics, bodily fluids, computer records, documents, explosives, fingerprints, narcotics, and voice identification, among other things. Expert bodies have however said that these laboratories are short of funds and qualified staff.  Further, there is indiscriminate referencing of cases to these labs resulting in high pendency. 

6  Police infrastructure 

Modern policing requires strong communication support, state-of-art or modern weapons, and a high degree of mobility.  The CAG and the BPRD have noted shortcomings on several of these fronts.

Weaponry:  The CAG has found that the weaponry of several state police forces is outdated, and the acquisition process of weapons is slow, causing a shortage in arms and ammunition. An audit of the Rajasthan police force (2009 to 2014) concluded that there was a shortage of 75% in the availability of modern weapons against the state’s own specified requirements. The same audit also found that even when weapons were procured, a large proportion of them (59%) were lying idle because they had not been distributed to the police stations.  Similar audits in West Bengal and Gujarat found shortages of 71% and 36% respectively in required weaponry. 

Police vehicles:  Audits have noted that police vehicles are in short supply.  New vehicles are often used to replace old vehicles, and there is a shortage of drivers.  This affects the response time of the police, and consequently their effectiveness.  As of January 2015, state forces had a total of 1,63,946 vehicles, marking a 30.5% deficiency against the required stock of vehicles (2,35,339 vehicles).

Police Telecommunication Network (POLNET):  The POLNET project was initiated by the central government in 2002 to connect the police and paramilitary forces of the country through a satellite-based communication network, that will be significantly faster than the existing system of radio communications.  However, audits have found that the POLNET network is non-functional in various states.  For example, an audit of the Gujarat police force reported that the network had not been operationalized till October 2015 due to the non-installation of essential infrastructures, such as remote subscriber units and generator sets.  The audit also noted that there were 40%-50% vacancies in key segments of trained personnel, such as radio operators and technicians, needed to operate the equipment.

Underutilisation of funds for modernization:  Both centre and states allocate funds for the modernization of state police forces.  These funds are typically used for strengthening police infrastructure, by way of the construction of police stations, and the purchase of weaponry, communication equipment, and vehicles.  However, there has been a persistent problem of underutilization of modernization funds.  For example, in 2015-16, the center and states allocated Rs 9,203 crore for modernization.  However, only 14% of it was spent.  Figure 10 shows a trend of underutilization of funds between 2009-10 and 2015-16.  

7  Police-public relations

Police require the confidence, cooperation, and support of the community to prevent crime and disorder.  For example, police personnel rely on members of the community to be informers and witnesses in any criminal investigation.  Therefore, police-public relations is an important concern ineffective policing.  The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has noted that police-public relations is in an unsatisfactory state because people view the police as corrupt, inefficient, politically partisan and unresponsive.²² 

One of the ways of addressing this challenge is through the community policing model.  Community policing requires the police to work with the community to prevent and detection of crime, maintenance of public order, and resolve local conflicts, with the objective of providing a better quality of life and sense of security.  It may include patrolling by the police for non-emergency interactions with the public, actively soliciting requests for service not involving criminal matters, community-based crime prevention and creating mechanisms for grassroots feedback from the community.  Various states have been experimenting with community policing including Kerala through ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Project’, Rajasthan through ‘Joint Patrolling Committees’, Assam through ‘Meira Paibi’, Tamil Nadu through ‘Friends of Police’, West Bengal through the ‘Community Policing Project’, Andhra Pradesh through ‘Maithri and Maharashtra through ‘Mohalla Committees’. 

At this time we need an act that can make police friendly to the public. The government was introducing such activities which are making police more powerful and they can even use this power to suppress the voice of people and people are also not able to raise their voices against the government and its policies. At Present time India needs Police Reforms so people see police as their helpers as now people see police as a problem. But, Government is not implementing it due to their personal interest. I hope that government will realize that in today’s world we need police reforms and work on it.