On September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark verdict in the famous Prakash Singh case, demanding countrywide police reform and issuing seven critical orders to begin implementation immediately. However, unfortunately, almost nothing has changed in India’s approach to police. Despite considerable frustration and dissatisfaction with the way the police force operates, the cause of reform has failed to catch the attention of Indians.

The primary purpose of these programs is to identify potentially dangerous habits inside police agencies and take preventative measures to limit incidents of police violence. This paper will define the concept of police reforms, the background, and the importance of the police reforms committee. 

Understanding of police reforms in India 

Police reforms focus on transforming the values, policies, culture, and practices of police organisations so that officers can carry out their duties by human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law. It also focuses on improving how well the police communicate with other sections of the security sector, such as corrections departments and courts and parliamentary, executive, or independent officials with managerial or oversight responsibilities. Police are included in the state list of “Schedule 7” of the Indian Constitution, and Indian police are based on colonial power. The primary duties of Indian police are maintaining order and law, investigating the criminals and crimes, keeping the internal security, and controlling the VVIP movement. 

Those who maintain that the current police system is suitable, turn a blind eye to several obvious grounds for reform, the most serious of which is the general public’s image of our police as unprofessional, unsympathetic, harsh, and corrupt. These impressions may be too broad, but they can be corrected with deliberate moves. Reforms are required as a result.

Historical background of police reforms 

The British administration implemented pre-independence police reforms in 1902-1903. For the first police reforms after independence, the Indian government established the ‘National Police Commission’ in 1977. This was the first group at the national level based by the Indian government to comment on policing. The NPC submitted eight reports between 1979 and 1981, recommending wide-ranging improvements to the existing police structure; the most important is the Model Police Act, but the government approved none. In 1996, a former DGP from Uttar Pradesh filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court, demanding police reforms.

In September 2006, the Supreme Court instructed all states and Union territories to implement police reforms in a significant decision. In this decision, the Supreme Court ordered the union territories to follow seven binding directions that would kick-start the changes.

Directives of police reforms

1. Limited political control: Make sure that the new state government does not apply unwarranted influence or demand on the police.
2. Fix minimum texture: Assure that other police forces on operational functions, including Supervisors of Police in charge of a station and District Officers in command of a police station, are given a minimum of two years’ service.
3. Appointment based on merit: Assure that the ‘Director-General of Police’ is chosen based on value and transparently, with a minimum tenure of two years.
4. Separate functions of police: Separate the tasks of inquiry and law enforcement.
5. Fair and transparent system setup: Establish a ‘Police Establishment Board’ to assess and offer suggestions on postings, transfers, promotions, and other service-related concerns affecting police officers with ranks below that of ‘Deputy Superintendent of Police’.
6. Police Complaints Authority establishment: Police Complaints Authority should establish the state level to investigate complaints from the public against police officials above the position of Superintendent, in cases of significant misbehaviour, such as grievous bodily harm, custodial death, or rape in police custody. The Police Complaints Authority should be established at the district level to investigate public complaints against police employees, including the position of Superintendent of Police in cases of significant misbehaviour.
7. Security commission set up: A ‘National Security Commission’ must be established at the union level to develop a board for the recruitment and selection process of Central Police Organisation heads with a minimum tenure of two years.

Importance of police reforms committee

1. Colonial law: Even now, our police are built on colonial rule; we know that the British utilise police as an instrument to restrict people’s voices and for personal purposes, and our esteemed administration does the same.
2. Low of torture: This is unfortunate that India has just signed the United Nations Convention against torture, which has yet to be approved by the Parliament. We do not even have a specific provision against torture, but we do have judgement.
3. Custodial death: There are several incidents of custodial death, which refers to end as a result of pressure or torture while in police or court custody. During 1996-1997, the Supreme Court of India established a rule on custodial death under the D.K. Basu ruling.
4. Political interference: Police officers in India are not allowed to work independently rather under pressure of a political party or influence. 

Conclusion

Indian citizens play a critical role in implementing police reforms. Even so, in a democracy, the voice of the people holds the most influence. To win elections, political leaders must have the support of the people. Issues that have the potential to earn them votes are quickly seized. In the absence of social pressure, the political elite can easily afford to overlook the subject of police reform. There is an urgent need for citizens to rise and put more pressure on this point.