A decade after SC ruling, police reforms remain on paper

For the common man, police are the first point of contact with the law. His respect for law, therefore, depends to a large extent on his confidence in the police. But, unfortunately in India, the situation is such that people are afraid of going to the police even when it is necessary. Reports of police favouring those with money and political connections, and harassing the poor and the underprivileged drives them away.

Rude manners, refusal to register complaints and taking sides are the common complaints against the police. Cases of illegal detention, harassment of witnesses to protect the high and mighty, custodial torture, extracting confession under duress which later proves to be false etc, have tarnished the name of the police. Such instances also result in the real culprits escaping and innocent persons getting convicted.

A few honest officers who try to chart a new course are often forced to give up due to pressure from the top. Those who are harassed by their seniors and political bosses take it out on their subordinates and the latter vent their frustration on the public.

Many of these shortcomings of the police are a legacy of colonial rule. The Indian Police Act 1861 enacted by the British soon after the rebellion of 1857 to suppress the democratic aspirations of the people and to keep them under subjugation, govern police even today. The Police Act of 1861 was designed to be a tool of oppression.

Though times and circumstances have changed, police in India are yet to imbibe qualities suitable for a democratic society. Many in the police force believe that an authoritarian style of functioning and an intimidating personality trait is the sine qua non of police. Instead of being seen as a friend of the people and protector of law, police arouse fear in the people.

During Emergency (1975), the country witnessed large scale misuse of police by the ruling party to curtail dissent. The Janata Party government which came to power so-on after the distressing experience, constituted the National Police Commission (NPC) headed by Dharma Vira to reform the police. The NPC made a painstaking study to identify and understand the issues and suggested measures for bringing about changes in the organisation and role of the police.

It suggested measures to reduce political interference, to make police officers accountable and for changing the attitude of police towards the public. The NPC drafted the Model Police Act to replace the draconian Indian Police Act.

Policing being a state subject, it was for the state governments to implement the recommendations. But none of the state governments was prepared to usher in the changes as it would have deprived the political class of the control over the police.

Pained by this, two retired DGPs – Prakash Singh and N K Singh – filed a PIL in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set up the Ribeiro Committee to suggest measures for reforms and the committee submitted its report in 1999. Again, a second committee known as the Padmanabhaiah Committee was set up which submitted its report in 2000.

After this, the SC set up the Soli Sorabjee Committee to draft the new Model Police Bill to replace the colonial Police Act of 1861. But the state governments were not ready for the change. Finally, the Supreme Court, delivering its verdict in 2006, issued seven directives for immediate implementation. But the state governments were not willing to comply. The exasperated apex court had to set up a three-member committee in 2008 to monitor compliance of its directives.

But not much has changed till today. Most of the directives of the Supreme Court and recommendations of the committees remain unimplemented. Inclusion of the opposition leader and independent members in the panel for appointing and fixing the tenure of senior officers, stopping interference by politicians in the day-to-day functioning of the police, setting up of a Police Establishment to oversee postings and transfer, establishment of a Police Complaints Authority to enforce accountability, separation of law and order and investigation functions etc, remain a mirage.

Police hierarchy

The present structure and hierarchy of the police is not conducive to promoting efficiency. Constables constitute 80% of the police force. They are ill-paid and their work profile does not promote responsibility. Their job is simply obeying the orders of the superiors. There is no scope for job satisfaction and promotional opportunities are limited. According to a study by the Bureau of Police Research and Development, most of them work extended hours and often are not allowed weekly offs due to staff shortage.

It is no wonder they become rude and impatient. Lack of leisure and rest can drive anybody to the edge. Though there is a huge shortage of staff, a large number of policemen are posted for VIP security and many are posted as ‘orderlies’ to do domestic chores at the homes of senior officers.

Various studies have pointed out that the recruitment and training process leave much to be desired. Emphasis on physical fitness to the exclusion of other faculties is the bane of the constable recruitment process.

The recommendation of NPC on increasing the number of middle level cadres of ASI/SI/inspector with a corresponding reduction in the number of constables should be implemented. Apart from increasing promotional opportunities for the constables, it will result in more number of staff in responsible positions. On-job training at different levels should be provided which will include skill development, motivation, team building, basic human psychology, stress management and updating knowledge in legal and investigation methods.

The Supreme Court and the NPC have charted the course for reforming the police and transforming them. But the state governments are dilly-dallying. The consequence of non-compliance is there for all to see. There may be constraints. But there is also a way out if the politicians are willing. Will the politicians wake up?

The link for article in DECCAN HERALD : Click here

Need to look into status of under trials

More than 2.75 lakh undertrials are rotting in Indian prisons even though their guilt is yet to be proved.

The avowed purpose of a criminal justice system is to deliver efficient and speedy justice to the citizens of the country. It is ironical that this very system has been unjust to a large number of under trials in this country.

As per reports of the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), more than two thirds of those languishing in our prisons are under trials. More than 2.75 lakh under trials are rotting in Indian prisons even though their guilt is yet to be proved.

Shailesh Gandhi, former Chief Information Commissioner, says that India is amongst the worst 10 nations in the world in terms of number of undertrials languishing in jails. According to the NCRB data, the worst states in this regard are Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Gujarat and Punjab with over 75% undertrials. On the other hand, Kerala and Tripura have only 35 and 32% undertrials respectively.

It is now universally accepted that a person should be deemed innocent until proved guilty. Hence, keeping people whose guilt is not proved in prison is a gross violation of human rights.

The purpose of keeping the undertrials in custody is to prevent them from being in a position of influencing and inducing witnesses. But ironically, the present bail system allows the rich and powerful who are capable of wielding such influence to remain outside but keeps the poor and helpless in prison as they are unable to pay the bail amount.

A classic example is that of actor Salman Khan. In spite of the fact that he has been convicted thrice (the chinkara case, the black bucks case and the hit and run case), and the combined sentence adds up to 11 years, he has been in jail only for six days. His case is not an exception but is representative of a common trend. All of us know of many such cases where those with the money and power have succeeded in avoiding imprisonment indefinitely.

While the poor languish in jail for years without even being convicted, those who can pay the bail amount and engage efficient and reputed lawyers, avoid the prison even after being convicted because the law provides for keeping the jail sentence suspended when the convict goes on appeal to the higher court. This leads one to the inference that our judicial system is outmoded and out of synchrony with the fundamental tenets of justice. It is biased against the poor.

Sometime ago, the Supreme Court itself had acknowledged that the “Law has become an instrument of injustice for the poor”.

Though pending cases have reached an unmanageable level, serious efforts to contain them are found lacking. The poor are made to suffer because of the incompetence of the system to dispose of cases expeditiously. The undertrial prisoner loses his means of livelihood, gets cut off from the family, his children are deprived of education and proper upbringing, and hence are likely to go astray. The whole family has to live with social stigma forever.

Habitual offenders

The injustice of keeping large number of undertrials in jail will be obvious when we realise that only a small percentage of them will be ultimately convicted. For example, the percentage of undertrials who were ultimately convicted in 2014 was only 45% (it was 40.2% in 2013 and 38.5% in 2012) according to the NCRB.

Many experts have suggested that instead of relying solely on payment of bail amount for granting bail, courts should consider factors like the nature of offence, past record, length of residence of accused in the community, his family ties and such other factors which would deter him from fleeing. Though undertrials are supposed to be in judicial custody, in practice they are lodged in the same prison as the convicts.

The Prison Reforms Committee set up under Justice A N Mulla in 1980 observed: “The undertrials cannot be put on the same footing as convicts.  The former are hauled up for suspected violation of law, yet they are innocent, till proved guilty. If they are allowed to mix up with hardened and habitual offenders, it would not be good for them and also for the society. Separate jails or barracks for undertrials are essential to contain ‘criminal contagion”.

The Mulla committee has also suggested releasing undertrials if they have already served half the period of imprisonment for which they are liable if the offence is proved. Various courts ruled later that when a person is in jail for a period longer than the sentence he is liable for the offence for which he is charged, then he should be released. But jail authorities lament that they do not have the infrastructure for proper data management and monitoring to implement such reform measures.

Separate institutions for undertrials, rehabilitation centres for those who are charged with petty offences, setting up of a bail fund to help those who are not able to mobilise the bail amount (as suggested by Amnesty International) are some measures which need to be considered urgently.

(My article published in DECCAN HERALD on 16.04.2016)