Police caught in a leadership vacuum

The reform India’s policing needs is a leadership that inspires with integrity and is committed to the rule of law

For more than four decades, the debate on policing in India has revolved around reforms. Committees have been constituted, commissions have submitted detailed reports, and the judiciary has repeatedly emphasised structural changes. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in 2006 in Prakash Singh vs Union of India laid down directions intended to insulate the police from undue interference and to professionalise the organisation. Yet, the everyday reality of policing often remains unchanged. The uncomfortable truth is that police institutions do not transform merely through reform; they are shaped by the quality of leadership.

Policing is ultimately a human enterprise. Laws, manuals, and administrative structures provide the framework, but the character and credibility of the police force depend on the men and women who lead it. A capable leader can inspire professionalism even within imperfect systems, while weak leadership can neutralise even the most well-designed reforms. In this sense, policing today needs leadership perhaps more urgently than it needs another round of reforms.

One of the most visible manifestations of weak leadership appears in the sphere of criminal investigation. Investigation is the backbone of the criminal justice system. It requires integrity, professional competence, and a relentless commitment to uncover the truth. However, the investigation’s effectiveness greatly depends on whether higher-level leadership is willing to protect the investigative process from external pressures.

In many situations, the investigating officer on the ground is willing to pursue evidence honestly. But the tone of the investigation is often determined by signals coming from senior leadership. When leaders hesitate to insulate investigators from political or social pressure, the investigation begins to lose its independence. Subtle suggestions, cautious advice, or a conspicuous silence in sensitive cases can send powerful messages down the chain of command. Gradually, investigation ceases to be a search for truth and becomes an exercise in managing outcomes.

Politics inevitably interacts with policing in a democratic society. However, problems arise when police leadership begins to expand the space of discretion to accommodate political interests. In such situations, two troubling tendencies often emerge. First, there is a lack of institutional courage – leaders hesitate to take firm decisions where influential individuals or groups are involved. Second, the enforcement of the law becomes selective.

Selective policing is one of the most corrosive developments in any criminal justice system. When ordinary citizens see the law being applied rigorously to the weak but cautiously to the powerful, confidence in the system begins to erode. The perception gradually takes root that policing is negotiable, that influence can bend procedure, and that accountability is unevenly distributed.

This phenomenon often results in what may be described as protective policing for the rich and powerful. Cases involving influential persons sometimes witness delays in registration of complaints, hesitant investigation, or procedural lapses that weaken prosecution. These outcomes rarely occur in isolation. They are frequently the consequence of signals transmitted through leadership behaviour.

Young police officers watch these patterns closely. If they observe that professional courage is neither protected nor rewarded, they quickly learn to adapt. Instead of prioritising integrity, they begin to cultivate caution. The moral compass of the organisation begins to shift. The cost of such leadership failure is immense. Honest officers become disillusioned. Initiative diminishes. Public trust declines.

Setting an example

Leadership in policing, therefore, requires something deeper than administrative efficiency. It demands moral courage. A police leader must send a clear message throughout the organisation: the law will be applied uniformly, and investigations will follow evidence rather than influence. Political pressures may exist, but leadership must define the limits within which those pressures can operate.

When police leadership demonstrates fairness and firmness, the rank and file gain confidence. Investigators feel protected. Citizens feel reassured that justice is possible. Conversely, when leadership becomes hesitant or selectively discretionary, the entire organisation gradually adjusts itself to serve influence rather than law.

Reforms are undoubtedly necessary. Modern policing requires better technology, improved training, clearer procedures, and institutional safeguards against interference. But reforms alone cannot guarantee justice. Without leadership that is courageous, impartial, and committed
to the rule of law, reforms remain little more than administrative documents.

The true strength of policing lies not in the number of reforms enacted but in the quality of leadership that guides the force. Institutions change when leaders choose principle over convenience, courage over caution, and justice over influence. Until such leadership becomes the norm, the promise of police reform will remain incomplete.

(The writer is a former DGP, Uttar Pradesh, and president, Indian Police Foundation)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)