Police reforms

B. S. Raghavan THE Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), in its own well-meaning way, has been tirelessly organising in various parts of the country for the past five years a series of 15 or so seminars to sensitise politicians, media, civil society, policepersons, bureaucrats, lawyers, human rights activists, businesspersons and citizens on the need for reforming the police. The general thrust of its efforts has been towards converting the police into a service organisation, insulating it from illegitimate outside control and subservience to politicians, and imbuing it with a sense of public accountability in the discharge of its functions. Fortunately for the CHRI, there are reports on all these counts submitted by the L. P. Singh Committee on revamping the IB and CBI (1977-78), National Police Commission (1979-81), the Ribiero Committee (1998-99) and the Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000). The Supreme Court too has given a number of judgments containing clear directives covering the same ground. Actually, there is plenty that higher echelons of the police in every State can do by themselves to tone up its performance and accountability. Even under the existing legal provisions police officials have unfettered freedom to register and investigate cases and can tell off politicians or outsiders who seek to interfere. The Criminal Procedure Code vests an officer-in-charge of a police station with complete independence. Also, it is not as if the police is a victim of extraneous influence in all cases. In 95 per cent of them, the police is left free to perform its duties. Proper training, grounding in statutory safeguards and rights of citizens, as also an equitable system of rewards and punishments, can bring about salutary changes without indulging in any grandiose talk of reforms. Most of the time it is the failure of higher police officers to adhere to the time-honoured precepts of leadership that is the cause of the deterioration. The CHRI should not lose any more time in seminars leading to off-the-cuff prescriptions by sundry invitees. It should use its clout to apply relentless pressure on the Prime Minister and the Home Minister and on leaders of political parties in Parliament to put into effect the recommendations of the learned bodies and judicial pronouncements but with one caveat: While the police should be insulated from political pressures, it should not be independent of executive oversight. No uniformed force with sweeping powers of making arrest or using firearms should be. That is why in British days the district police worked under the supervision of the district magistrate who had the power of inspecting police stations and watching over the course of investigations. Likewise, the Inspector-General of Police reported to the Chief Secretary. That practice should be brought back.