Dear Friends ,
The article below is related to police administration. One of the major issues police facing today is political interference in their day to day administration. And this article is in favour of releasing the police from the clutches of politicians. It supports 'operational autonomy' to police. I have highlighted the important points in this article which can be part of your notes for police administration.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(The article is from 'Frontline' author RK Raghavan)
Police & politics
UNION Home Minister P. Chidambaram brings a whiff of fresh air to the tradition-bound Home Ministry. He said something recently that a run-of-the-mill Home Minister would not ordinarily have said. Speaking at the annual conference of the Directors-Gen eral of Police (DGPs), he bemoaned the fact that police officers in the country were being kicked around like football. Who were the culprits? He left this unsaid.
It was more than obvious that his finger of scorn pointed to the States, which controlled a bulk of the police force in the country. He could not have spoken more bluntly or used a more appropriate term. Do not ask me whether he would have said the same thing if he had been a serving or a past Chief Minister of a State. That is beside the point. What is relevant here is that a man who heads the all-powerful Home Ministry is so forthright, unmindful of giving the impression that he is helpless in the face of a fast deteriorating situation.
Remember, on paper, it is the Home Ministry, which is the cadre authority of the exalted Indian Police Service (IPS). (A “cadre authority” is the Ministry that lays down rules and regulations regarding the career management of an officer and ensures that these are adhered to strictly by both the Centre and the State governments where a majority of personnel of the All India Services, namely, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the IPS and the Indian Forest Service (IFS) operate. The Department of Personnel looks after the IAS, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests controls the IFS). This is the tragedy of the Indian scene. An IPS officer is recruited by the Union government, while the arbiter of destinies of such an officer is the State government.
This is a funny arrangement that nobody outside the country will ever comprehend. If the system has not broken down completely, it is due to the wisdom and maturity of some Home Ministers and a few Chief Ministers. A certain measure of stability seen in the system can also be attributed to the generally high calibre of a large number of IPS officers, some of whom have been commendably resolute and stayed on in the service, undeterred by the grave provocation, sometimes from a few petty and vindictive elements in the ruling class. Their dedication to the public cause is praiseworthy.
The original sin for all this is, however, that of the Founding Fathers, who decided – obviously for assuring States that they were not the minions of the Centre – that “Police” should be under the State List in the Constitution of India. I predict that this arrangement will remain so forever. Politicians in many States get such a hypnotic kick (no pun intended) out of making life difficult and unstable for the DGP and his senior officers that they will hardly agree to the subject of “Police” being shifted even to the Concurrent List, what to speak of the Union List. This strange “fondness” for the police cuts across party lines and the gender divide as well.
I think Chidambaram chose the wrong audience to speak on the subject of police autonomy. He should, in fact, have appealed to the good senses of Chief Ministers and told them that their choice of a DGP and other senior officers such as the Commissioner of Police and the Inspector-General of Police (Intelligence) should be done objectively and solely on professional grounds. Caste and regional considerations or the pliability of an officer should not hold sway as they do now, often, if not all the time.
Also, Chief Ministers should be made to understand that an honest officer, who may quote the rules and be argumentative, is preferable to a “Yes man”, who offers no counsel but who stands out only for his servility and pliability, two seductive qualities that could lead a Chief Minister into difficulties in a real crisis. (A PTI report also speaks of a Home Ministry communication to the States urging more authority to DGPs in matters of internal administration. It would be interesting to speculate on States’ responses. My bet is that if and when States act, it will at best be a cosmetic exercise to appease Chidambaram, something that will not really enhance the DGP’s autonomy in operational matters.)
The politician’s proclivity to lord over the police is not just an Indian ailment. It is seen to varying degrees in many other countries as well. The only difference is that, in India, the disease takes a virulent form, with political interference extending at times to downright illegal directions to the police to change the course and outcome of a sensitive criminal investigation to suit the needs of a ruling party.
In a few advanced nations, political interference takes a subtler form. For instance, the London Metropolitan Police has lately been under some stress from a Tory Mayor, Boris Johnson, who is a maverick. He took over from Ken Livingstone, a Labour Mayor, last year. Since then, there have been distressing signs of an undercurrent of tension between the Mayor and the Police Commissioner.
First, the previous Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, a Labour appointee, was shown the door before the end of his tenure, although, strictly speaking, it is the Home Secretary who appoints the Met Commissioner on the recommendation of the Police Authority (chaired by the Mayor of London) for the Met, a representative body of politicians, civil service and the citizenry, something akin to the State Security Commission recommended by the National Police Commission way back in the late 1970s. Once Boris Johnson made it clear, even in his early days in office, that Sir Ian Blair did not enjoy his (Johnson’s) confidence, the Commissioner had no option but to bow out of office, despite the fact that he could have stayed on with the support of the Home Secretary.
Not that Blair was faultless. He got involved in several controversies during his tenure, including the defence of his officers in 2005 when they shot and killed an innocent Brazilian worker at the Stockwell tube station when they were looking for a terrorist suspect. It was a case of mistaken identity. The manner in which Blair was eased out was, however, in poor taste and smacked of political vindictiveness. It was a frontal assault on the independence of Scotland Yard (the Met’s hallowed other name) about which we had been repeatedly told in our younger years.
More recently, an undiplomatic, if not a tendentious, statement by one of Mayor Johnson’s deputies generated a new controversy. It all started with the Deputy Mayor in charge of policing, Kit Malthouse, claiming in a statement to the Guardian that he and Mayor Johnson had their “hands on the tiller” of Scotland Yard, suggesting that they had seized operational control of the Metropolitan Police. This drew a sharp reaction from the Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson (who succeeded Sir Ian Blair), who promptly wrote to the newspaper a letter disabusing the public of any wrong impression that he had abdicated his responsibility. I will be doing justice to Commissioner Stephenson only if I quote him verbatim:
“I do not want anyone to be under the misapprehension that Scotland Yard or the Metropolitan Police Service is under the operational control of any political party…. [Tories claim: we have seized control of Scotland Yard, September 3.]
“While the Home Office and the police authority have a right and duty to set priorities, budget and hold us to account, I set the operational strategy and direction for the Met.... All operational decisions are taken without fear or favour for any individual, political or other interest. I can reassure you that I have no intention or expectation of this changing – now or in the future.”
The controversy has somewhat died down with respective sides showing a measure of discretion and maturity. But the point I want to make here is that the system in the United Kingdom permits a professional police officer to assert his authority in public and say that, in matters of police operation, it is he who calls the shots and not his political bosses. It will be centuries before the Indian political executive will appreciate the brilliance and the logic behind such an arrangement. Until this happens, a police chief in India will necessarily have to bend if not crawl in his daily interaction with the political executive. I am not sure when that glorious day will come when we can witness the same courage that a Metropolitan Commissioner can display in thwarting attempts to inject politics into policing.
Showing posts with label Law and Order Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Order Administration. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Police Administration - what is the problem
Dear Friends ,
The following article gives some insight in to problem faced police. We always tend to blame the police and public has altogether different impression of police. Today people fear police more than rowdies. ( this may be an exaggeration but this is true in some cases). But at the same time the working condition of police is also not good . They are expected to work under hostile conditions and are not compensated well for that.
I have highlighted some facts below which can be part of your notes from this article.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(Source of the Article is outlook magazine.The article is in Vijay Nambisan's words)
![]()
Handcuffed In Khaki
It was good of Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram to cheer up the top brass at the conference of inspector-generals and director-generals of police in New Delhi. Of course, the home minister must have got a silent horse laugh when he said top officers should protest against frequent transfers. The civil services can hinder or render government but can’t stand up to politicians.
Does it occur to these statesmen that they are patting the wrong backs—backs and backsides so patted and petted their owners can live comfortably even when not in their bosses’ best books, which can be said of no other job? To politicians, the DGPs, IGs and SPs may represent the police. We citizens know a completely different face—and back—of the keepers of law and order.
Rudyard Kipling noted in Kim: “Native police mean extortion to the native all India over.” He was careful not to probe any deeper. The native police were the tool of a force whose business was extortion. It ceased to matter whether they extorted on their own behalf or on behalf of their masters. To us natives, alas, the symbolism of the police constable has not vastly changed in a century.
India’s administrative system is essentially one that Sher Shah Suri designed nearly 500 years ago. Akbar fine-tuned it, the British altered it to suit their ends, but its main purpose was always the same —efficient tax collection. Justice came a tardy second when it figured at all. The chief innovation of the Raj was the creation of the district collector, an autocrat in his fief.
After independence, we retained the system devised to extract the most juice out of us. (A thick-headed press still uses the word “rule” instead of “govern” to describe the political function!) For more than 30 years, the district collector continued to be a petty despot. Now, I understand, collectors are designated district magistrates, and the post is considered very junior in the heirarchy. That is only because the breed has proliferated. There are so many more IAS officers than there used to be, or need to be.
The police was used by the Raj to keep a subjugated people beneath the yoke. There were no citizens of India. “Law and order” meant the tax-gatherer’s law, the conqueror’s order. (It still does—see how the home minister speaks of first destroying the Naxalite threat and then addressing its causes.) Justice was something to be bought and sold. (It still is—look at the celebrity hit-and-run cases.)
We have done nothing to change this system. The “native” police, under the Raj, were the enforcers, the sharpest weapons of oppression. They still are and use methods devised to suppress freedom fighters. The forced confession, the custodial death, the intimidation of relations, the very lathi—nothing has changed.
I have the utmost sympathy for the policeman. Ill-trained, ill-paid, set to menial work by his officers, reviled by the masses he has sprung from, his lot is not a happy one. In Delhi, in the mid-80s, I hobnobbed with a good number of cops, from DCPs down through SHOs to constables. (I even interviewed then police commissioner Ved Marwah.) The DCPs were slick and well-fed and spoke of their commitment to the public weal and the wonderful modern training policemen were being given. They still do this. What that really means is that IPS officers who are good boys get to do their MBAs on public funds, or go to academies abroad for a couple of years. The only public weal the constable knows is one inflicted with a lathi.
In those days, head constables, asis and other supervisory ranks got Rs 1,000-1,500 a month. They had to provide themselves with two sets of uniforms out of this. Many of them were from rural Uttar Pradesh and sent what money they could to their families, with which they spent a month or two every year if they got leave. Their “training” amounted to some lectures by the brass.
I am not in touch, but I don’t see any material change. The police mean extortion all over India. Doctors are also coming to mean the same. But doctors are relatively empowered. Do constables get to make representations to the various police reforms commissions? Do the eminent people on these commissions visit the thana unannounced? An honest IPS officer can make a deal of difference. The home minister is idealistic in asking top officers to protest transfers, but he is in the right. So is the prime minister, when he speaks of focusing on the thana. I only wish they would take a turn at cheering up the constables.
The following article gives some insight in to problem faced police. We always tend to blame the police and public has altogether different impression of police. Today people fear police more than rowdies. ( this may be an exaggeration but this is true in some cases). But at the same time the working condition of police is also not good . They are expected to work under hostile conditions and are not compensated well for that.
I have highlighted some facts below which can be part of your notes from this article.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(Source of the Article is outlook magazine.The article is in Vijay Nambisan's words)
Handcuffed In Khaki
It was good of Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram to cheer up the top brass at the conference of inspector-generals and director-generals of police in New Delhi. Of course, the home minister must have got a silent horse laugh when he said top officers should protest against frequent transfers. The civil services can hinder or render government but can’t stand up to politicians.
Does it occur to these statesmen that they are patting the wrong backs—backs and backsides so patted and petted their owners can live comfortably even when not in their bosses’ best books, which can be said of no other job? To politicians, the DGPs, IGs and SPs may represent the police. We citizens know a completely different face—and back—of the keepers of law and order.
Rudyard Kipling noted in Kim: “Native police mean extortion to the native all India over.” He was careful not to probe any deeper. The native police were the tool of a force whose business was extortion. It ceased to matter whether they extorted on their own behalf or on behalf of their masters. To us natives, alas, the symbolism of the police constable has not vastly changed in a century.
India’s administrative system is essentially one that Sher Shah Suri designed nearly 500 years ago. Akbar fine-tuned it, the British altered it to suit their ends, but its main purpose was always the same —efficient tax collection. Justice came a tardy second when it figured at all. The chief innovation of the Raj was the creation of the district collector, an autocrat in his fief.
After independence, we retained the system devised to extract the most juice out of us. (A thick-headed press still uses the word “rule” instead of “govern” to describe the political function!) For more than 30 years, the district collector continued to be a petty despot. Now, I understand, collectors are designated district magistrates, and the post is considered very junior in the heirarchy. That is only because the breed has proliferated. There are so many more IAS officers than there used to be, or need to be.
The police was used by the Raj to keep a subjugated people beneath the yoke. There were no citizens of India. “Law and order” meant the tax-gatherer’s law, the conqueror’s order. (It still does—see how the home minister speaks of first destroying the Naxalite threat and then addressing its causes.) Justice was something to be bought and sold. (It still is—look at the celebrity hit-and-run cases.)
We have done nothing to change this system. The “native” police, under the Raj, were the enforcers, the sharpest weapons of oppression. They still are and use methods devised to suppress freedom fighters. The forced confession, the custodial death, the intimidation of relations, the very lathi—nothing has changed.
I have the utmost sympathy for the policeman. Ill-trained, ill-paid, set to menial work by his officers, reviled by the masses he has sprung from, his lot is not a happy one. In Delhi, in the mid-80s, I hobnobbed with a good number of cops, from DCPs down through SHOs to constables. (I even interviewed then police commissioner Ved Marwah.) The DCPs were slick and well-fed and spoke of their commitment to the public weal and the wonderful modern training policemen were being given. They still do this. What that really means is that IPS officers who are good boys get to do their MBAs on public funds, or go to academies abroad for a couple of years. The only public weal the constable knows is one inflicted with a lathi.
In those days, head constables, asis and other supervisory ranks got Rs 1,000-1,500 a month. They had to provide themselves with two sets of uniforms out of this. Many of them were from rural Uttar Pradesh and sent what money they could to their families, with which they spent a month or two every year if they got leave. Their “training” amounted to some lectures by the brass.
I am not in touch, but I don’t see any material change. The police mean extortion all over India. Doctors are also coming to mean the same. But doctors are relatively empowered. Do constables get to make representations to the various police reforms commissions? Do the eminent people on these commissions visit the thana unannounced? An honest IPS officer can make a deal of difference. The home minister is idealistic in asking top officers to protest transfers, but he is in the right. So is the prime minister, when he speaks of focusing on the thana. I only wish they would take a turn at cheering up the constables.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Police Administration - The other side of the police
This article gives the material to answer the questions on police administration. This gives us some basic reasons why police is perceived in a negative sense ,why police has become a demonic symbol and what is the other side of the police. Highlighted stuff can be incorporated in the answers.Also it gives a good impression on the examiner if you incorporate positive aspects in concluding part of your answer.At the end of this article there are some positive points about police which you might want to remember. The picture above can be an excellent illustrative for answer writing on police administration and is taken from Administrative reform Comission's report on 'public order' (Click on the image to view )
Regards
GMStudycenter
Source - 'The Hindu'
Of late, there are many stories related to government departments, especially the police, and they revolve round the negative role they are assumed to have played in a given situation. Why? There is some background to it.
The British allowed unfettered powers to the police to repress our legitimate independence struggle and, the police enjoined upon themselves the powers of rustic justice on the spot without going through the legal processes. This brought them into direct conflict with the public which resented such powers. Both the Police Act of 1861 and the Indian Penal Code of 1860 continue to be in force even today! However, Independence did not alter the police mindset and they, in some instances, continued to behave in the same manner as they did in the past. The basic fear of the common man is of the inherent and legitimate power to confine any person both legally or on trumped up charges for 24 hours and, of course, criminals fear the police lathi too.This leads to animosity towards the police. Even the worst of criminals desire to be pardoned and when the police overlook their plea for leniency, these criminals develop an antipathy towards the police. Negative minds bond in such cases and even if only a handful with an unpleasant interface with the police come together and amplify their voices, the rest with their pleasant experience with the police will have no voice as they will never get together.
The humane side
Many individuals and organisations, including governments all over the country, perform many good deeds beneficial to the people in the course of their duties, and sometimes even beyond the call of duty. There is no dearth of outstanding police work. But, unfortunately, because of the negative branding it has always been receiving, the sacrifices and the contribution towards providing a safe society goes unacknowledged. Thousands of policemen lost their lives while on internal security duties in Kashmir or Punjab, or the Maoist affected states. This is not remembered because of the unfortunate acts of some individuals in a given situation.
Criticism is essential in a democracy but repeated criticism, unless constructive, is not going to help anyone, least of all the persons who are criticised. While mala fide and grossly negligent acts need to be condemned or acted upon, errors of judgment or bona fide mistakes and acts for which the individual is not directly responsible should be looked at with more understanding.
No doubt, serious ills plague the police but is there any institution which is devoid of them in some degree or the other? There are systemic failures and we all contribute to it one way or the other. We bribe because we want to get out of a self-created situation — breaking a traffic rule being one simple example. It is a combination of our greed and someone’s willingness for exploitation.
If public servants are apathetic, it is because they rarely get a pat on the back for the good services rendered on many an occasion but which rarely even get noticed. (This is one of the important point needs to be emphasised in the answer)
It required the supreme sacrifice of 20 policemen in the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11 to convey that despite the negative portrayal of the police, they are actually heroes willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the nation. Thank God, the public at large have overwhelmingly recognised this. Today the internal security is at stake. It is time for everyone to alter their mindsets and bestow more faith and confidence in the security agencies.
Pat the police occasionally but not always highlight their shortcomings alone and you will see a sea change in their response and behaviour. Admonish and mock them constantly, they will sink into further despair pulling everyone along with them. The society can ill-afford that. There is need for another pledge that each citizen will respect and follow the law in all cases and respect the law enforcer. The police will respond with greater resolve to attend to the needs of the citizens.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Police Administration - India's police: Worse than criminals
When we want to find the mistake - we need to see things from distance . So here is one article selected from web - the author is hongkong based person. Though we may not agree everything he is saying but we can get some points for mains answer writing in critique Indian police.Though the words used here cant be replicated exactly because the author has used strong words which cant be written in a competitive examination, we need juggle with diplomatic words.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(Source of the article http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/06/15/indias_police_worse_than_criminals/5954/)
Describing policing in India does not call for any positive superlatives. The police force is a state entity that is criticized and often treated with contempt. Corruption, ineptitude and the use of arbitrary force are some of its features. Yet in times of extreme necessity it has tried to deliver results. The Mumbai terror attacks are the latest example.
The Indian police, like many other government institutions, are a product of colonial times. Indians are indebted to the British for many state-run establishments like the railways, postal services and even the basic administrative framework that runs this diverse country. Most of these state institutions have accommodated change and undergone drastic restructuring. Yet the state of affairs within the police force has seen little change in the past 62 years.
It is true that the colonial police were far different in appearance from current policemen. But changes in policing have been largely cosmetic. New uniforms are not real change. The administrative principles and philosophy behind the police force in India are still tainted with distrust – by superior officers of those of lower rank, and by ordinary people of the police, and vice versa.
This lack of change is intentional. Politicians who ruled the country for the past six decades and more at no point wanted a police service independent of political interference. So they successfully retained the system whereby police services were subjugated to the political authority of the ruling elite or political parties. While superior officers were rewarded for their political allegiances, lower rank officers were left at the mercy of their superiors.
Corruption, nepotism and the use of brute force are inherent evils within the policing system, irrespective of the political color and ideology of the ruling government. The police are primarily used for social control. It is therefore natural that criminal investigations are given the lowest priority. This is a sentiment dating back to colonial times and is reflected in the current infrastructural deficit in the police services.
Most police officers lack investigative tools and training. Yet they are provided with combat weapons to control people. Police training at the constabulary level is focused on mob control while criminal investigation is ignored. Police officers below the rank of superintendent do not even know the basic legal framework of the criminal law, and no regular academic training is provided for these officers.
In such an environment, criminal investigations are conducted with brute force at the whim of the investigating officer. It is a common story that unless there is political pressure or incentives driven by bribes, police officers refuse to investigate crimes. Those that are investigated begin and end with a confession. Most investigations result in acquittals in a court of law.
Over the past several years there have been several attempts to address the problems within the police service. The National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts as well as the civil society have spearheaded most such efforts.
Unfortunately, India does not have a functioning National Police Commission. One that came into existence in 1977 was smothered out of life by May 1981 and the government largely ignored its reports – eight in number.
Yet in the past 10 years the Supreme Court of India and the National Human Rights Commission have come up with several recommendations and directives aimed at addressing the blatant violations of law practiced by the police and delinking the police from the claws of corrupt politicians.
Of particular importance are the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court condemning the use of torture and the general disregard for the law within the police ranks. The jurisprudence laid down by the court in a series of judgments from the Nandini Satpati case to the Prakash Singh case, dealt with various facets of policing from torture to criminal investigations to delinking politics and the police. The National Human Rights Commission also tried to do its bit by recommending government measures to reduce abuse of power by the police.
All the recommendations fell upon deaf ears when it came to policymakers, who continuously ignored the valuable suggestions aimed at ironing out the creases of one of the primary institutions of the country. The union government could do little to control the police, as they were under the authority of state governments in the constitutional framework.
As of today, the state of affairs in the Indian police force is deplorable and condemnable to the core. The police force is considered synonymous with corruption and criminality. Yet there is hardly any sensible discussion in the country about the role the defunct Indian police play in undermining democracy and democratic norms.
Still one cannot say there have been no attempts at reform. Unfortunately, suggestions for reforms were usually made by jurists and academics who could prepare reports at short notice to suit the whims of the governments that appointed them. Their recommendations reflected the spineless character of their authors.
Regards
GMStudyCenter
(Source of the article http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/06/15/indias_police_worse_than_criminals/5954/)
Describing policing in India does not call for any positive superlatives. The police force is a state entity that is criticized and often treated with contempt. Corruption, ineptitude and the use of arbitrary force are some of its features. Yet in times of extreme necessity it has tried to deliver results. The Mumbai terror attacks are the latest example.
The Indian police, like many other government institutions, are a product of colonial times. Indians are indebted to the British for many state-run establishments like the railways, postal services and even the basic administrative framework that runs this diverse country. Most of these state institutions have accommodated change and undergone drastic restructuring. Yet the state of affairs within the police force has seen little change in the past 62 years.
It is true that the colonial police were far different in appearance from current policemen. But changes in policing have been largely cosmetic. New uniforms are not real change. The administrative principles and philosophy behind the police force in India are still tainted with distrust – by superior officers of those of lower rank, and by ordinary people of the police, and vice versa.
This lack of change is intentional. Politicians who ruled the country for the past six decades and more at no point wanted a police service independent of political interference. So they successfully retained the system whereby police services were subjugated to the political authority of the ruling elite or political parties. While superior officers were rewarded for their political allegiances, lower rank officers were left at the mercy of their superiors.
Corruption, nepotism and the use of brute force are inherent evils within the policing system, irrespective of the political color and ideology of the ruling government. The police are primarily used for social control. It is therefore natural that criminal investigations are given the lowest priority. This is a sentiment dating back to colonial times and is reflected in the current infrastructural deficit in the police services.
Most police officers lack investigative tools and training. Yet they are provided with combat weapons to control people. Police training at the constabulary level is focused on mob control while criminal investigation is ignored. Police officers below the rank of superintendent do not even know the basic legal framework of the criminal law, and no regular academic training is provided for these officers.
In such an environment, criminal investigations are conducted with brute force at the whim of the investigating officer. It is a common story that unless there is political pressure or incentives driven by bribes, police officers refuse to investigate crimes. Those that are investigated begin and end with a confession. Most investigations result in acquittals in a court of law.
Over the past several years there have been several attempts to address the problems within the police service. The National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts as well as the civil society have spearheaded most such efforts.
Unfortunately, India does not have a functioning National Police Commission. One that came into existence in 1977 was smothered out of life by May 1981 and the government largely ignored its reports – eight in number.
Yet in the past 10 years the Supreme Court of India and the National Human Rights Commission have come up with several recommendations and directives aimed at addressing the blatant violations of law practiced by the police and delinking the police from the claws of corrupt politicians.
Of particular importance are the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court condemning the use of torture and the general disregard for the law within the police ranks. The jurisprudence laid down by the court in a series of judgments from the Nandini Satpati case to the Prakash Singh case, dealt with various facets of policing from torture to criminal investigations to delinking politics and the police. The National Human Rights Commission also tried to do its bit by recommending government measures to reduce abuse of power by the police.
All the recommendations fell upon deaf ears when it came to policymakers, who continuously ignored the valuable suggestions aimed at ironing out the creases of one of the primary institutions of the country. The union government could do little to control the police, as they were under the authority of state governments in the constitutional framework.
As of today, the state of affairs in the Indian police force is deplorable and condemnable to the core. The police force is considered synonymous with corruption and criminality. Yet there is hardly any sensible discussion in the country about the role the defunct Indian police play in undermining democracy and democratic norms.
Still one cannot say there have been no attempts at reform. Unfortunately, suggestions for reforms were usually made by jurists and academics who could prepare reports at short notice to suit the whims of the governments that appointed them. Their recommendations reflected the spineless character of their authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
