Role of Police in a Parliamentary Democracy

To show that politicians cannot use police personnel as “scapegoats,” the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of deposed Kerala DGP T.P. Senkumar on 24 April 2017, a first in the country’s history. It is a disservice to diminish the role of police in a parliamentary democracy.

This page discusses the history of police reforms in India, the A.H.L Fraser Commission, Supreme Court directions, and recent cases like the TP Senkumar Case.

Why Are Police Reforms Currently Under the Spotlight?

State governments that replaced their police chiefs in retaliation for the Supreme Court’s rule stating that DGPs should have a two-year term and not be susceptible to the political whims of governments will be affected by this decision.

The Role of Police in a Parliamentary Democracy

The role of police in a parliamentary democracy is critical because they protect public safety and security. The frequency and sophistication of crime have risen steadily in recent years, giving police departments new challenges. A.H.L Fraser Commission and the 1861 Police Act underpin the current Indian police system, which is largely a holdover from British control in India.

• The Police Force is a State-Owned Enterprise

There are limits to what the centre can do regarding police matters because they are exclusively a state matter.

The Indian Police Act of 1861 and the A.H.L Fraser Commission were used as a model for these new laws, but the result was the same. This has led to a protector becoming a predator, and the people’s confidence has been shaken. The role of the police in a parliamentary democracy is significantly weakened.

• Role of Police in a Parliamentary Democracy

The National Police Committee, 1978 was established following the country’s independence.

The National Police Committee, 1978, had broad terms of reference that included the police organisation, its role, functionality, accountability, and contacts with the public, among other things.

In its complete report, this committee suggested the creation of an independent body within the organisation that would be accountable to the public.

Role of Police in a Parliamentary Democracy: The Supreme Court’s Seven Directives (2006)

In 2006, more than a decade after Mr Singh first filed his plea. The Supreme Court issued its nearly revolutionary instructions. To kick-start reform and even the role of police in a parliamentary democracy, the states and union territories were ordered to comply with seven binding directions. 

• Directive 1

State police performance and the A.H.L. Fraser Commission’s findings.

• Directive.2

Establish a two-year term for the DGP after they are appointed using a merit-based, open, and transparent selection procedure.

• Directive No. 3

Provide a two-year tenure for all operational police officers, including district and station house officers. This includes officers in command of police stations.

• Directive No. 4

Make a distinction between the police’s investigative and law enforcement duties.

• Directive No. 5

Make recommendations on transfers, postings, promotions, and other service-related concerns of police officers below the Deputy Superintendent of Police rank and establish a police establishment board (PEB) to make those decisions.

• Directive No. 6

In cases of serious misconduct, such as a death in custody, serious injury, or rape in police custody, establish a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the state level to investigate public allegations against police officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent Police and above. Investigate public complaints at a district level against police personnel below the Deputy Superintendent of Police position to investigate serious misconduct.

• Directive No. 7

Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the national level to develop a panel for selecting and appointment of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO).

Fourteen states passed legislation primarily intended to avoid them in response to the directions rather than implement them. Until now, the administration has yet to demonstrate its commitment to following the court’s instructions to the letter and spirit, until now.

Why Do We Need Police Reform?

• The safety and well-being of society and its citizens depend on the effectiveness of the police. Consequently, the role of the police in a parliamentary democracy is closely monitored by the public.
• To eliminate political influence that has resulted in police losing their independence. Today’s police officers are both politicised and criminalised.
• Instil trust in the institution of the police by making officers more friendly.
• Preventing police brutality, such as extrajudicial execution. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recently reported that 206 cases were reported in the past year.
• As our economy grows, the need for law and order is critical.

Conclusion

State governments that replaced their police chiefs in retaliation for the Supreme Court’s rule that DGPs should have a two-year term and not be susceptible to the political whims of their respective governments will be affected by this decision.

TP Senkumar’s dismissal by the Kerala government was arbitrary and not by established law, the Supreme Court said in a major ruling. The Supreme Court rarely gets involved in such nominations, and therefore the decision has sparked a discussion about judicial overreach.