Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)

Background and Context:

Prakash Singh served as DGP of UP Police and Assam Police, besides other postings. He filed a PIL in the Supreme Court post retirement, in 1996, seeking police reforms. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in September 2006 had directed all states and UTs to bring in police reforms. The ruling issued a series of measures that were to be undertaken by the governments. These were in line with ensuring that the police could do their work without worrying about any political interference.

What were the measures suggested in the Prakash Singh judgment?

The main directive in the verdict was fixing the tenure and selection of the DGP (Director General of Police). This is to avoid situations where officers about to retire in a few months are given the post. In order to ensure no political interference, a minimum tenure was sought for the Inspector General of Police. This is to ensure that they are not transferred mid-term by politicians. The SC further directed postings of officers being done by Police Establishment Boards (PEB). The idea is to insulate powers of postings and transfers from political leaders. The PEBs comprise police officers and senior bureaucrats. Further, there was a recommendation of setting up State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA). This should work as a platform where common people aggrieved by police action could approach. Apart from this, the SC directed separation of investigation and law and order functions to better improve policing. It also suggested setting up of State Security Commissions (SSC) that would have members from civil society and forming a National Security Commission.

Key Reforms Introduced:

1. Director-General of Police (DGP) Tenure: DGPs were to have a fixed two-year tenure and were to be selected from the three senior-most IPS officers of the state. This aimed to reduce the influence of DGPs over postings and transfers.
2. Police Establishment Boards: Formed to oversee matters of police postings and transfers. Ensured transparency and accountability in these processes.
3. Revised Police Act: Modeled after the Police Act of 1861. Clarified the roles and responsibilities of the central government, state governments, and districts in managing police forces.

The main directions issued by the Supreme Court are:

1. Constitute a State Security Commission on any of the models recommended by the National Human Right Commission, the Ribeiro Committee or the Sorabjee Committee.
2. Select the DGP of the state from amongst three seniors most officers of the department empaneled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC and once selected, provide him a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.
3. Prescribe a minimum tenure of two years to the police officers on operational duties.
4. Separate investigating police from law & order police, starting with towns/urban areas having a population of ten lakhs or more, and gradually extending to smaller towns/urban areas also.
5. Set up a Police Establishment Board at the state level for inter alia deciding all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
6. Constitute Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district level for looking into complaints against police officers.
7. The Supreme Court also directed the central government to set up a National Security Commission at the Union Level to prepare a panel for being placed before the appropriate Appointing Authority, for selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organizations (CPOs), who should also be given a minimum tenure of two years, with additional mandate to review from time to time measures to upgrade the effectiveness of these forces, improve the service conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is proper coordination between them and that the forces are generally utilized for the purposes they were raised and make recommendations in that behalf.

In July 2018, the Supreme Court clarified that:

1. All states shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the UPSC, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police.
2. The state shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the UPSC.
3. None of the states shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of DGP on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police.

However, many states passed laws or executive orders to circumvent the empanelment process of the UPSC.

Conclusion:

The conclusion drawn from the case of Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 22 September 2006 and the subsequent reforms in the police organization can be summarized as follows:

The Police Act of 1861 had proven to be inadequate and ineffective. It was clear that political parties were exerting undue influence over the police force and its officials, compromising the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement.

The situation reached a tipping point when retired IPS officer Mr. Prakash Singh filed a writ petition, highlighting the urgent need for reforms in the police organization. This eventually led to significant changes being implemented in 2006, which have since been adopted in many Indian states and Union Territories.

The unintended consequences, such as undermining the role of DGPs, diluting the importance of seniority, and potential political interference in appointments, highlight the complexities and shortcomings in the implementation of these reforms.

The reforms primarily focus on granting states and Union Territories greater autonomy and responsibility over their respective police forces. This shift aims to reduce political interference and enhance the efficiency and efficacy of law enforcement agencies.

The central role of the government shifts towards providing support, training, and resources to the states and Union Territories, allowing them to have more control over the day-to-day operations and decision-making processes within their police forces.