Why blame the police?

N D Sharma

A file photo of Pehlu Khan's family staging a sit-in protest in Delhi in April 2017.

The beating of Pehlu Khan by the mob of self-styled vigilantes. Pehlu Khan’s is not the only case in which the police investigation was botched up. This has happened in Prof Sabharwal murder case, in Shehla Masood murder case, in Samjhauta Express blast case and in many, many others. In some cases the trial judge has mentioned how the investigation was bungled as in the Pehlu Khan lynching case or in the Sabharwal murder case or in the Samjhauta Express blast case but occasionally the judge overlooks the deficiencies in the investigation.

Pehlu Khan’s is not the only case in which the police investigation was botched up. This has happened in Prof Sabharwal murder case, in Shehla Masood murder case, in Samjhauta Express blast case and in many, many others.

However, the police are not to blame for this. The police force, constituted under the Police Act of 1861, is accountable to the rulers and not to the people. The law was enacted by the British in the aftermath of 1857 revolt against the British rule. The areas under the control of East India Company were brought under the British rule and the newly created police force was deployed to ‘uphold the interests of the imperial power and to carry out its diktats, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful’.

The Police Act of 1861 is one of the few, if not the only, Act which has not been amended even once in independent India. The reason: the arrangement suited eminently to whoever was in power. In the 1980s, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani constantly made three demands in his public speeches: repeal the Police Act, carry out electoral reforms and storm the terrorist training camps in the Pakoccupied Kashmir (PoK). When he became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not even once utter these words.

L K Advani In the 1980s, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani constantly made three demands in his public speeches: repeal the Police Act, carry out electoral reforms and storm the terrorist training camps in the Pakoccupied Kashmir (PoK). When he became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not even once utter these words.

It’s not that the British were fully satisfied with the Act. It had become the subject of discussion from the time it was implemented. Following constant criticism of the working of the Indian police, the British government set up a Police Commission in 1901-1903 to look into the working of the police in India and suggest reforms.

The Commission observed, ‘ there can be no doubt that the police force throughout the country (India) is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government and that radical reforms are urgently necessary’. No attempt was made to carry out the desired reforms.

The discussion about the working of the police constituted under the Police Act of 1861 continued even after the country gained independence. The government set up in 1977 the National Police Commission as it felt that far reaching changes have taken place in the country since independence but ‘there has been no comprehensive review of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country’. The Commission submitted eight lengthy reports between 1979 and 1981 containing comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. The matter ended there.

Prakash Singh Former Director General of Border Security Force (BSF) Prakash Singh filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in 1966 with the objective of ‘freeing the police from the stranglehold of politicians and making it accountable to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country’. While the PIL was progressing in the Supreme Court, three committees were appointed by the government to deliberate on the question of police reforms: the Ribeiro Committee in 1998, the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and the Malimath Committee on criminal justice in 2002. According to Prakash Singh, the three committees had broadly come to the same conclusions and emphasised the urgent need for police reforms in the context of new challenges but the reforms were never carried out ‘because of the combined opposition of the political parties’.

Y K Sabharwal, C K Thakker P K Balasubramanyam A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice C K Thakker and Justice P K Balasubramanyam, gave the judgement on September 22, 2oo6. Its main recommendations were: setting up of a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; selection of Director General of Police by the State government from among the three seniormost officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and to have a tenure of at least two years; IG, Deputy IG, SP and SHO to have a fixed tenure of at least two years; separation of investigating police from law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people; Police Establishment Board in each State to decide on transfers, postings, etc, and service related matters of officers up to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP); setting up of Police Complaints Authority at district level to look into complaints against police officers up to DSP; the Centre to set up National Security Commission for selection and placement of Chiefs of Central Police Organisations.

The judgement said that the directions had to be complied by December 31, 2006 and sought compliance reports from the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of States or Union Territories by January 3, 2007.

It is too much to expect Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to explain what happened to the draft Police Act prepared by the committee or the one that was prepared by the National Police Commission set up in 1977. If Narasimha Rao, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh did not care for these, why should Modi and Shah? Till then, Pehlu Khans will continue to be lynched and Ashok Gehlots will continue to blame Vasundhara Rajes.

Former Director of CBI Joginder Singh writes that ‘almost all State governments filed affidavits either asking for more time to bring about the changes or pleading that under the Constitution, law and order is a State subject and the Supreme Court order, therefore, went against that’. The result was that nothing worthwhile was done.

Prakash Singh, former BSF Director General and the petitioner in the case, wrote prophetically in an article in 2006: ‘The transition is, however, not going to be smooth. Vested interests, whose power to manipulate and abuse the police has been taken away, will try to scuttle such reforms through every means possible’.

Politicians in power know how to protect their vested interests without offending the other Constitutional authorities. As the arguments on the PIL seeking police reforms were nearing conclusion in the Supreme Court, the Government of India constituted a committee in September 2005 to draft a new Police Act to replace the Police Act of 1861.

Members of the committee included Soli Sorabji, former Attorney General; Dr N C Saxena, former Secretary to Government of India; Prof N R Madhavan Menon, Director of National Judicial Academy, Bhopal: Prof Ranbir Singh, Director of National Law Institute, Hyderabad; Ajay Raj Sharma, Director General, Bureau if Police Research and Development; V N Gaur, Joint Secretary (Police), Government of India; Kamal Kumar, Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA); and N C Joshi, Director General, Bureau of Police Research and Development. Harminder Raj Singh, Joint Secretary (Police Modernisation) GOI was the Convener of the committee while Dr UNB Rao, IPS (Retd) was the Secretary to the committee.

It is too much to expect Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to explain what happened to the draft Police Act prepared by the committee or the one that was prepared by the National Police Commission set up in 1977. If Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh did not care for these, why should Modi and Shah? Till then, Pehlu Khans will continue to be lynched and Ashok Gehlots will continue to blame Vasundhara Rajes.



		EDITOR'S MAIL EDITOR'S COMMENT INDIAN ECONOMY FRANKLY SPEAKING INDIA’S KASHMIR POLICY INDIA’S PAK POLICY REALPOLITIK PM’S I-DAY ADDRESS NATURE’S FURY LYNCHING WEST BENGAL POLITICS CHANDIGARH DIARY HIMACHAL SCENE PUNJAB SCENE HITS & MISSES AFGHAN SCENE AMERICA WATCH TRENDS IN TERRORISM BOOK BAZAAR BOOK BAZAAR SIGNS OF THE TIMES MAN VS WILD PUNJAB’S PRIDE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL PIPE TOBACCO ART OF LIVING Issue:June' 2019 Subscribe Now	LYNCHING Why blame the police? N D Sharma A file photo of Pehlu Khan's family staging a sit-in protest in Delhi in April 2017. The beating of Pehlu Khan by the mob of self-styled vigilantes. Pehlu Khan’s is not the only case in which the police investigation was botched up. This has happened in Prof Sabharwal murder case, in Shehla Masood murder case, in Samjhauta Express blast case and in many, many others. In some cases the trial judge has mentioned how the investigation was bungled as in the Pehlu Khan lynching case or in the Sabharwal murder case or in the Samjhauta Express blast case but occasionally the judge overlooks the deficiencies in the investigation. Pehlu Khan’s is not the only case in which the police investigation was botched up. This has happened in Prof Sabharwal murder case, in Shehla Masood murder case, in Samjhauta Express blast case and in many, many others. However, the police are not to blame for this. The police force, constituted under the Police Act of 1861, is accountable to the rulers and not to the people. The law was enacted by the British in the aftermath of 1857 revolt against the British rule. The areas under the control of East India Company were brought under the British rule and the newly created police force was deployed to ‘uphold the interests of the imperial power and to carry out its diktats, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful’. The Police Act of 1861 is one of the few, if not the only, Act which has not been amended even once in independent India. The reason: the arrangement suited eminently to whoever was in power. In the 1980s, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani constantly made three demands in his public speeches: repeal the Police Act, carry out electoral reforms and storm the terrorist training camps in the Pakoccupied Kashmir (PoK). When he became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not even once utter these words. L K Advani In the 1980s, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani constantly made three demands in his public speeches: repeal the Police Act, carry out electoral reforms and storm the terrorist training camps in the Pakoccupied Kashmir (PoK). When he became Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government, he did not even once utter these words. It’s not that the British were fully satisfied with the Act. It had become the subject of discussion from the time it was implemented. Following constant criticism of the working of the Indian police, the British government set up a Police Commission in 1901-1903 to look into the working of the police in India and suggest reforms. The Commission observed, ‘ there can be no doubt that the police force throughout the country (India) is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government and that radical reforms are urgently necessary’. No attempt was made to carry out the desired reforms. The discussion about the working of the police constituted under the Police Act of 1861 continued even after the country gained independence. The government set up in 1977 the National Police Commission as it felt that far reaching changes have taken place in the country since independence but ‘there has been no comprehensive review of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country’. The Commission submitted eight lengthy reports between 1979 and 1981 containing comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working. The matter ended there. Prakash Singh Former Director General of Border Security Force (BSF) Prakash Singh filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in 1966 with the objective of ‘freeing the police from the stranglehold of politicians and making it accountable to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country’. While the PIL was progressing in the Supreme Court, three committees were appointed by the government to deliberate on the question of police reforms: the Ribeiro Committee in 1998, the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and the Malimath Committee on criminal justice in 2002. According to Prakash Singh, the three committees had broadly come to the same conclusions and emphasised the urgent need for police reforms in the context of new challenges but the reforms were never carried out ‘because of the combined opposition of the political parties’. Y K Sabharwal, C K Thakker P K Balasubramanyam A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice C K Thakker and Justice P K Balasubramanyam, gave the judgement on September 22, 2oo6. Its main recommendations were: setting up of a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; selection of Director General of Police by the State government from among the three seniormost officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and to have a tenure of at least two years; IG, Deputy IG, SP and SHO to have a fixed tenure of at least two years; separation of investigating police from law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people; Police Establishment Board in each State to decide on transfers, postings, etc, and service related matters of officers up to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP); setting up of Police Complaints Authority at district level to look into complaints against police officers up to DSP; the Centre to set up National Security Commission for selection and placement of Chiefs of Central Police Organisations. The judgement said that the directions had to be complied by December 31, 2006 and sought compliance reports from the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of States or Union Territories by January 3, 2007. It is too much to expect Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to explain what happened to the draft Police Act prepared by the committee or the one that was prepared by the National Police Commission set up in 1977. If Narasimha Rao, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh did not care for these, why should Modi and Shah? Till then, Pehlu Khans will continue to be lynched and Ashok Gehlots will continue to blame Vasundhara Rajes. Former Director of CBI Joginder Singh writes that ‘almost all State governments filed affidavits either asking for more time to bring about the changes or pleading that under the Constitution, law and order is a State subject and the Supreme Court order, therefore, went against that’. The result was that nothing worthwhile was done. Prakash Singh, former BSF Director General and the petitioner in the case, wrote prophetically in an article in 2006: ‘The transition is, however, not going to be smooth. Vested interests, whose power to manipulate and abuse the police has been taken away, will try to scuttle such reforms through every means possible’. Politicians in power know how to protect their vested interests without offending the other Constitutional authorities. As the arguments on the PIL seeking police reforms were nearing conclusion in the Supreme Court, the Government of India constituted a committee in September 2005 to draft a new Police Act to replace the Police Act of 1861. Members of the committee included Soli Sorabji, former Attorney General; Dr N C Saxena, former Secretary to Government of India; Prof N R Madhavan Menon, Director of National Judicial Academy, Bhopal: Prof Ranbir Singh, Director of National Law Institute, Hyderabad; Ajay Raj Sharma, Director General, Bureau if Police Research and Development; V N Gaur, Joint Secretary (Police), Government of India; Kamal Kumar, Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA); and N C Joshi, Director General, Bureau of Police Research and Development. Harminder Raj Singh, Joint Secretary (Police Modernisation) GOI was the Convener of the committee while Dr UNB Rao, IPS (Retd) was the Secretary to the committee. It is too much to expect Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to explain what happened to the draft Police Act prepared by the committee or the one that was prepared by the National Police Commission set up in 1977. If Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh did not care for these, why should Modi and Shah? Till then, Pehlu Khans will continue to be lynched and Ashok Gehlots will continue to blame Vasundhara Rajes.