JOIN USThe recent transfer of Deputy Superintendent of Police Anupama Shenoy of Kudligi police sub-division, Ballari district in Karnataka manifests both the weakness and strength of India’s fledgling democracy. The ‘administrative’ transfer amounts to blatant political interference in routine functions of the police.
However, the fact that the peoples’ protests prompted the government to reinstate the police officer is a triumph of democracy. The police officer was arbitrarily transferred because she did not give perceived priority to a telephone call from the district-in-charge minister, and preferred to speak to her immediate departmental boss first.
The Police Establishment Board (PEB) was set up on the recommendation of the Supreme Court to deal with such “political and whimsical” transfers. The act goes against the very grain of the decade-old SC directive that recommended certain urgent police reforms to be immediately introduced in all the states. The rationale behind the PEB was based on the sound management principle of functional autonomy through which the police, rather than the political leadership, would decide on appointments and transfers.
The PEB comprises three Additional Director Generals of Police (ADGP) rank officers who are selected by the state government. These include the ADGP Administration as member-secretary and DG & IGP as chairman. The case in point shows that these arrangements appear to be effective only in theory and the reality is quite a different story.
The Supreme Court in its September 2006 order directed the states to first implement 6 urgent police reforms. These reforms include the need to constitute a State Security Commission and insulate the police officers from political interference in their duties. The Director General of Police would be selected by a panel which comprises the chief minister, home minister and opposition leader, among other members.
Likewise, the Police Complaints Authority would provide citizens a forum to lodge complaints against police officers and, thereby, ensure accountability. Another major recommendation is to separate investigation duties from law and order functions that would help to infuse professionalism in police work. Even after a decade, these reforms are far from taking firm root.
Today, the chief minister and home minister are continuing to honour the recommendations of MLAs/MLCs on appointments and transfers of sub-inspectors, inspectors, deputy superintendents and superintendents of police in the districts due to their own political compulsions. The euphemism is calling it ‘coalition compulsions’.
Whenever an MLA or minister feels uncomfortable with a police officer, then the one year minimum tenure rule is subverted with an executive order known as “officer sent on other official duties.” Sometimes police officers are also coerced, cajoled and counseled to give a letter or willingness to opt for transfer citing personal grounds.
Another method is to engineer an alle-gation of serious misconduct and initiate a departmental inquiry to prove that the charges are adequate to merit a premature transfer. Clearly, the tragedy of poli-tical interference in police work after six decades of nationhood hampers the gr-owth of good governance in the country.
No wonder, the SC appointed the Thomas Committee to monitor the implementation of its directions on police reforms by various state governments, which in its August 23, 2010 report expressed “dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of the police being exhibited by the states.” Some states have resorted to the route of executive orders while others have made amendments to their respective Police Acts. To that extent all these responses to the implementation of the SC-directed police reforms appear to be only on paper.
Serving political interests
The Karnataka government amended the Karnataka Police Act in June 2013 which serves only the interests of the political class rather than the people. According to the amended Act, the minimum tenure for police officers in executive positions has been fixed at one year. Also the role of the Union Public Service Commission has been nullified in the selection process of the DGP.
While 17 states have passed Police Acts, they have not adhered to the letter and spirit of the SC directives. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi exhorted senior police officers to fulfill their duty both at Guwahati in November 2014 and later at Kutch in December 2015, this would truly not be possible without implementation of the SC mandated police reforms.
The police provide the foundation for the criminal justice system and therefore, needs to evolve into a robust, impartial and effective institution of governance. The rule of law and rule of engagement have to be followed by the police implicitly to ensure that democratic institutions reach the desired level of maturity.
Today, Karnataka, which is an industrialised state and hopes to attract investments, cannot afford to ignore the implementation of police reforms which is an essential tool for good governance. Security threats like the 2006 terrorist attack on the Indian Institute of Science, religious fundamentalism that plagues the coastal belt and the incipient Maoist problem can only be neutralised through a professional police force.
The rule of law is synonymous with democracy and can effectively be upheld only through the police force, provided it functions in a professional manner minus political interference as per the rule of engagement.
(R Sri Kumar is a former CVC member and DG&IGP, Karnataka and George K Jose is Associate Professor, School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru)