Under the Indian Constitution, the Police are a state concern.[1]However, there are similarities between the states, due to three main reasons. First, all state polices are structured and regulated by the Police Act of 1861 or they have state statutes that are modeled after the 1861 Act. Second, the India Police Service is trained, recruited and managed by the central government[2]. The service also deploys the senior offices to the states. Third, the central government maintains a coordinating role, while the state government is in charge of supervising its police force[3].
At the district level (every state is divided into districts), there is a level of dual control. On the one hand, there is a high-ranking police officer in charge of the district (District Superintendent of Police). On the other hand, that District Superintendent is subject to the general direction and control of the District Magistrate, who belongs to the executive.[4]This was done so as to assure executive rule over the police, which was considered essential for maintaining British rule. However, the system was not always efficient so it was supplemented, gradually, in many cities, with another system, by which the commissioner of police supervises that area. Matters relating to the police at the central level are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The relationship between the state and the central government is complex and multifaceted, regulated by the Constitution and framework statutes. However, for our purposes, it is important to establish which entity has control over police conduct itself. The police itself are under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs. And yet, the mechanism which checks police conduct is not to be found there. The police does investigate official misconduct and corruption, but only when it comes to the misconduct of other government officials and not to police misconduct itself[5]In terms of internal disciplinary investigations, the police are responsible for disciplining their own.
The duties of the police are specified in the Police Act of 1861, a remnant of colonial rule that was designed to be highly militaristic and authoritarian[6]. Section 20 specifies that the police do not have unfettered discretion to commit any act, but only those acts that have been sanctioned by law (the ultra-vires principle). Section 23 specifies the general duties of the police officer[7]. Save for a brief section on neglect of duty, however, the Act does not discuss instances of civilian and political control over police when the latter has exceeded or abused its power[8]
As mentioned above, the police are governed by the state, so most of the regulations will be found in state laws rather than central government laws. For example, the Delhi Police Act of 1978 specifies, in section 19, the powers held by the commissioner of police. The Commissioner may make regulations regarding, among others, the place of residence of members of the police force and regulations for the purpose of “rendering the police efficient and preventing abuse or neglect of their duties”[9]. The Act further provides for punishments in cases of misconduct[10].
While the various police acts clearly articulate the powers the police forces enjoy, they are less clear, indeed silent, on the processes that can be taken against police misconduct by the aggrieved citizenry. True, the police acts prescribe actions that can be taken against police officers in cases of dereliction of duty, but such action is usually brought by the officer’s superior, who also later assigns the punishment, if any. The various police acts do not set up any mechanism for effective political and civic control of the police force. There is no establishment of an institution whose sole purpose and authority is to receive complaints from the public, investigate the complaints, and bring the proper action after the investigation has ended. While the police have internal mechanisms to deal with disciplinary infractions and the like, there is no clearly established external mechanism that makes them accountable to the public which they are in charge of protecting.
The need for reform: The need for police reforms in India is long recognized. There has been more than three decades of discussion by government created committees and commissions. Way back in 1979 the National Police Commission (NPC) was set upto report on policing and give recommendations for reform. The Commission produced eight reports, dozens of topic specific recommendations and also a Model Police Act. No recommendation was adopted by any government. This persuaded two former Director General’s of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 year long battle in Court, the Court set up the Ribeiro Committee in 1998 followed by the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and eventually the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC or Soli Sorabjee Committee) that drafted a new model police bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act in 2006. Meanwhile very little was ever done on the ground to improve policing or implement the recommendations put forth by any of these committees or commissions.
A decade later in 2006 the Court delivered its verdict. In what is popularly referred to as the Prakash Singh case[11]the Supreme Court ordered that reform must take place. States and union territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick start reform.
THE SEVEN DIRECTIVES IN A NUTSHELL
Directive One
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:
(i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police
(ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and
(iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police
Directive Two
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Three
Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Four
Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police
Directive Five
Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Directive Six
Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct
Directive Seven
Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years
These directives pulled together the various strands of improvement generated since 1979. The Court required immediate implementation of its orders either through executive orders or new police legislation. Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all states and union territories. However, in 2008 it set up a three member Monitoring Committee with a two year mandate to examine compliance state by state and report back to it periodically.
Compliance Statistics of the Directive issued by Supreme Court : So far, only 14 states have either enacted the new Police Act or amended their existing laws to incorporate suggestions of the SC.
Comparison of the Police Act 1861 and Model Police Act, 1861 :
1) On the basis of scope of the Acts: The Police Act 1861 is not the sole or only law in relation to police functions .The maintenance of public order and the criminal justice system are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act as well as a large number of special legislations including special laws including Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA, now repealed ) or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (in which many of the provisions of repealed POTA have been incorporated ) or Control of Organized Crimes Act (COCA) as in Maharashtra or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, apart from the provisions of the Indian Constitution itself .In addition to the laws, there are Police Regulations (e.g. PRB in West Bengal) and Police Manuals (e.g. Tamil Nadu) in every state laying down clear guidelines and instructions in regard to the exercise of police powers and duties.
The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration. It is self sufficient in nature and does not draw any support from the other substantive law for the purpose of administration. It is an act in a right direction which can be a good alternative to the archaic old act
2) The preamble of the Act: The preamble of the Police Act of 1861 states that enacted to reorganize the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime[12]. The preamble of the act makes it clear that the role of the police is just as an instrument for prevention and detection of crimes. The police plays no role in preserving the rights of the people and responding to the democratic aspiration of the people. The role of the police is just confined to the law enforcement function.
The preamble of the Model Act is wider in its ambit and its states:
WHEREAS respect for and promotion of the human rights of the people, and protection of their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, is the primary concern of the Rule of Law[13];
AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide impartial and efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests of vulnerable sections of society including the minorities, and responding to the democratic aspirations of citizens;
AND WHEREAS such functioning of the police personnel needs to be professionally organised, service oriented, free from extraneous influences and accountable to law;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to redefine the role of the police, its duties and responsibilities, by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of State, the imperatives of good governance, and respect for human rights;
AND WHEREAS it is essential to appropriately empower the police to enable it to function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, since it is necessary for this purpose to enact a new law relating to the establishment and management of the Police Service, it is hereby enacted as follows:
3) Control and Supervision of Police :
Under the Police Act 1861, the superintendence of the police vests in the State Government and it is exercised by the State Government to which the Police Officer is Subordinate[14]. The admistration of the Police according to the act vests in the Inspector-General of Police and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspector-General , as the State Government considers fit.[15]
Whereas in the Model Police Act, Superintendence of the police vests in the relevant state government[16]. The state government is responsible for ensuring an efficient, effective, responsive and accountable police service[17]. Superintendence is limited to promoting “professional efficiency of the police” and ensuring that “[police] performance is at all times in accordance with law. Administration of the police vests in the Director General of Police[18]. The government cannot interfere with the Director General’s powers except in accordance with prescribed rules or in exceptional circumstances (where reasons should be recorded). The powers of administration will include[19]:
§ supervising the functioning of the police at all levels;
§ appointment to subordinate ranks (all officers below the rank of Deputy
§ Superintendent of Police);
§ deployment;
§ transfers and disciplinary action up to and inclusive of the rank of Inspector of Police; and
§ advising the government on the placement of officers of and above therank of Assistant/Deputy Superintendent of Police.
4. Provision for State Police Board
The Police Act 1861 does not provide for the formation of a State Police Board whereas the Model Police Act, 2006 states a state Police Board[20]would be constituted
The State Police Board according to the act shall comprise of[21]:
a) the Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly;
b) a retired High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court;
c) the Chief Secretary;
d) the Home Secretary;
e) the Director General of Police as the member secretary; and
f) five non-political persons of proven integrity and competence from the fields of academia, law, public administration, media or nongovernment
The State Police Board would perform the following functions according to the act[22]:
a) frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, effective, responsiveand accountable policing;
b) select and prepare a panel (on the basis of seniority and merit see below)of three senior most police officers for promotion to the post of Director General of Police;
c) identify performance indicators for police evaluation; and
d) Conduct organizational performance evaluation.
5. Provisions regarding Director General of Police:
The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the appointment of Director General of Police but under the Model Police Act, the police is under administration of Director General of Police so provision has been incorporated for appointment of Director General of Police who shall be appointed by State Government from amongst three senior-most officers of the state Police Service, empanelled for the rank[23].
6. Security of Tenure:
The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the security of tenure. It provides that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector-General, Assistant Inspector-General and District Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss , suspend or reduce any police officer of subordinate ranks whom they think remiss or negligent in the discharge of duty , or unfit for the same[24].
On the other hand the Model Police Act, 2006 provides that all officers must be provided with a minimum of two years tenure in a particular post to ensure they are free to complete their tasks free of illegitimate interference[25]. An authority mandated to transfer officers of a particular rank (or to a particular post) may transfer officers before the passing of two years, but only if reasons are recorded.
7. Transfers:
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision regarding transfers. The police being under the State Government is always subject to frequent transfers on the wishes of the State Government.
Under the Model Police Act, 2006 the Power to transfer is given to different authorities depending on rank or post. Transfer is prohibited by any authority other than the one specified in law. Under the Act the government shall post officers to all positions in the ranks of Assistant/ Deputy Superintendent and above. In each case (except for the Director General of Police), the government should be guided by the recommendations of the Police Establishment Committee[26], made up of the Director General of Police and four other senior-most officers. The government must accept these recommendations or record its reasons for disagreement in writing.
The Director General decides all initial transfers of officers who are Sub-Inspectors or Inspectors to a police range as well as transfers of these officers from one range to another, after considering the recommendations of the Establishment Committee. The Range Deputy Inspector General decides inter-district transfers of Inspectors and more junior officers within a range on the recommendations of a committee made up of all the District Superintendents of Police in the range[27]. The District Superintendent of Police decides the transfer of Inspectors and more junior officers within a district on the recommendations of a committee made up of all the Additional, Deputy and Assistant Superintendents of Police in a district.
8. Promotion :
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision for promotion.
The Draft Police Act, 2006 lays down specific provision regarding promotion which has to be evaluated by a qualifying examination and a performance evaluation[28]. The act further lays down that the union government must frame the evaluation criteria for officers of the Indian Police Service[29]. The Director General of Police shall frame the evaluation criteria for the remaining officers in the relevant state (with the approval of the state government)[30]. The Model Act also mandates the state Police Recruitment Board to set out the merit and seniority criteria for promotion for different ranks[31].
9. Appointment
The Police Act, 1861 states that appointment of the police officers is subject to article 311 of the constitution and such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under the act[32].
According to the Model Police Act Recruitment[33] to the police organization shall continue to be at the following three levels:
a) to the Indian Police Service through the Union Public Service Commission[34];
b) to Deputy Superintendent of Police through the State Public Service Commission[35];
c) and direct recruitment to non-gazetted ranks through a state-level Police Recruitment Board.
This Board created under the Model Act shall ensure that the process of recruitment is transparent, and adopts codified and scientific systems and procedures. The New act proposes the position of constable to be replaced by civil police. The direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ posts in the Civil Police, other than in the ministerial and technical cadres, after the coming into force of this Act, shall be made only to the ranks of Civil Police Officer Grade II and Sub-Inspector[36]. The age group for recruitment as stipendiary Civil Police Officer Grade II cadet shall be 18 to 23 years. The minimum educational qualification shall be 10+2 Higher Secondary or equivalent examination[37].
The act further provides that in case of armed police direct recruitment to the armed police shall be limited to Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commandant; Reserve Sub-Inspector; and Constable[38]. The minimum educational qualification for a Constable in the armed police shall be matriculation, while a reserve Sub-Inspector must be a graduate. A Constable shall be between 18-21 years of age and a reserve Sub-Inspector between 21-24 years[39].
10. Strengthening police investigations
Under the Police Act, 1861 the preamble clearly states that “whereas it is expedient to reorganize the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime[40]. The Police Investigation conducted are governed by the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure and there are no specific section in the Police Act, 1861 which provides for it.
On the other hand Model Police Act, 2006 provides that Investigation and law and order functions shall be separated (a model is proposed to ensure this happens without affecting the chain of command). Specialised crime investigation wings and departments must be equipped with adequate facilities, scientific aids, and qualified and trained human resources[41].
At the state level, a Criminal Investigation Department[42]must be created to investigate inter-state and inter-district crimes, as well as other serious crimes either notified by the state government or allocated to the Department by the Director General of Police. A Deputy Inspector General of Police shall head the Department[43]. The Department must have specialised units for investigating cyber crime, organized crime, homicide, economic offences and any other offences that require specific investigative skills (and are specifically notified by the state government).
The act further provides that a Special Crime Investigation Unit shall be created at the police station level in all urban and crime-prone rural areas[44]. A Sub-Inspector or a more senior officer shall head the Unit[45]. The Unit must investigate offences such as murder, kidnapping, rape, dacoity, robbery, dowry-related offences, serious cases of cheating, misappropriation and other economic offences that are notified by the Director General of Police or allocated by the District Superintendent of Police[46]. All other crimes shall continue to be investigated by other officers in the police station[47]. Officers in the Special Crime Investigation Unit and in the Criminal Investigation Department at the state level shall have a minimum tenure of three years (with a maximum tenure of five years)[48]. Officers posted to the Special Crime Investigation Unit cannot be given any other duty, except under exceptional circumstances and with the written permission of the Director General of Police.
The act also considers that despite the separation of investigation and law and order f unctions, the Station House Officer shall continue to supervise all officers in the Police Station including those posted in the Special Crime Investigation Unit. In addition to the Station House Officer, an Additional Superintendent of Police at the district level must supervise these investigations as well. The Additional Superintendent shall report to the District Superintendent.
11. Accountability for performance
The Police Act, 1861 totally fails on the grounds of any accountability of the acts of the Police. The police under this act hold no accountability to anyone.
Under the Model Police Acts the Police organization has been made more accountable to the public by incorporating certain specific provisions in this regard. The acts incorporates that the The State Government shall in consultation with the State Police Board established under draw up a Strategic Policing Plan for a five-year period duly identifying the objectives of policing sought to be achieved during the period and setting out an action plan for their implementation[49];. The plans shall be prepared after receiving inputs on the policing needs of the districts from the District Superintendents of Police who, in turn, shall formulate the same in consultation with the community[50].
The State Police Board shall regularly evaluate the performance of the police organisation in each district, as well as the state police as a whole. When conducting an evaluation, the Board shall be assisted by an Inspectorate of Performance. This Inspectorate shall be headed by a retired Director General of Police and made up of serving or retired police officers, social scientists, police academics and crime statisticians. The members of the Inspectorate shall be appointed by the government from a list of candidates prepared by the State Police Board[51]
12. Accountability for Police Misconduct
Police misconduct and the failure to effectively respond to situations are undermining public confidence in the system. These are issues whose gravity is not being addressed in any really serious way. The widespread belief that the police functions with impunity – and officers are rarely held to account for their acts of omission and commission is breaking the faith of the public in the police. Further, Sections 132 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prevent courts from taking cases of alleged offences in the discharge of official duty, for various categories of public servants including police officers, without the prior sanction of the government. This sanction is sparingly granted which explains the overwhelming reliance on internal disciplinary mechanisms which unfortunately do not inspire public trust and confidence. General public distrust stems from a variety of beliefs such as an innate desire for the department to protect its image; some questionable practices finding widespread acceptance within the police; inquiry officers not wishing to be seen as turncoats and inimical to the feeling of camaraderie; the feeling that disciplinary action will lower the morale of the force and blunt its edge in dealing with special situations like militancy or organised crime; and the likelihood of the person under scrutiny being personally known to inquiry officer/s.
The Police Act 1861 is silent on Police Misconduct but the Model Police Act has specific provisions devoted to it. Under the Model Police Act, 2006 The state government must set up a Police Accountability Commission[52]at the state level to inquire into extremely “serious misconduct[53]”, which is defined as: death in police custody; grievous hurt; rape or attempted rape; and illegal arrest or detention. Inquiries by the Commission shall replace internal inquiries, and its findings shall be binding on the police department and the government. The only discretion or power that the police or government shall have in such cases is to award punishment in cases where the Commission finds an officer guilty.
The police must be under a duty to forward all cases of serious misconduct to the Commission for inquiry. Except in cases of serious misconduct, the police department shall retain the the police department shall retain the power to internally inquire and discipline officers.
The Commission shall be made up of five members that have a credible record of Integrity and commitment to human rights. Of the five members, at least one must be a woman, and not more than one should be a police officer. The members must include[54]:
a. retired High Court judge as the Chairperson;’
b. a retired police officer of the rank of Director General of Police from a different state cadre;
c. a person with a minimum of ten years experience either as a judicial officer, public prosecutor, practising advocate, or a professor of law;
d. a person of repute and standing from civil society; and
e. a retired officer with experience in public administration from another state.
The state government must also put in place District Accountability Authorities[55]in each police district or group of districts in a police range to monitor internal inquiries into cases of police misconduct that include any wilful breach or neglect by a police officer of any law, rule, or regulation that adversely affects the rights of an individual.
To increase the accountability under the Act, The police are under a duty to send quarterly reports[56]detailing the complaints received against police officers and the action taken by the police organization (where the case involves a member of the public). If a complaint relates to a Deputy Superintendent (or more senior officer), the reports shall be sent to the Commission at the state level; for other officers, the reports must be sent to the Authority at the district level. If the Commission or Authority believes that there has been a delay dealing with a complaint, it may direct the police to expedite the inquiry. If a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of an inquiry and believesthat the principles of natural justice have not been followed, the Commission or Authority may direct the police to institute a fresh inquiry by a different officer.
A Complainant has also been granted right under the act[57], which are
a) to be informed of the progress of an inquiry periodically and of any conclusion and action taken in their case.
b) to be informed of the date and place of each hearing.
c) to attend all the hearings.
d) to have all hearings conducted in a language intelligible to the complainant,and if that is not possible, to be provided with an interpreter upon his or her request.
13. Police Offences :
The list of offences committed by a police officer under the Police Act, 1861 includes wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order; withdrawal from duties of the office or being absent without permission or reasonable cause; engaging without authority in any employment other than police duty; cowardice; and causing any unwarrantable violence to any person in her/his custody. The penalty for these offences is fine up to three months’ pay or imprisonment up to three months or both[58].
Under the Model Police Act, 2006, Identified police misconduct is considered a criminal offence. Identified misconduct includes illegal arrest, detention, search and seizure, failure to present an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, subjecting a person to torture, inhuman or unlawful violence, gross misbehaviour and making threats or promises unwarranted by law[59]. Non-registration of a First Information Report shall also be an offence punishable with three months imprisonment or fine (or both)
Conclusion
The Police Act, 1861 needs to be replaced with legislation that reflects the democratic nature of India.s polity and the changing times. The Act is weak in almost all the parameters that must govern democratic police legislation. The Act has made it easier for others to abuse and misuse the police organisation.It has been possible for people in positions of power to do so because of the following reasons:
i) The Act gives the government, the authority to exercise superintendence over the police, without defining the word.Superintendence. or prescribing some guidelines to ensure that the use of power will be legitimate
ii) The Act does not establish any institutional and other arrangements to insulate the police from undesirable and illegitimate outside control, pressures and influences
iii) The Act does not recognise the responsibility of the government to establish an efficient and effective police force.
iv) The Act does not make it necessary to outline objectives and performance standards, nor does it set up independent mechanisms to monitor and inspect police performance.
v) The Act is antiquated in its charter of duties, which is narrow and limited.
vi) The Act does not mandate the police to function as a professional and serviceoriented organization
vii) The Act is not in consonance with the requirements of democratic policing. These requirements insist on the existence of a police force that:
(a) is subject to the rule of law, rather than the whims of a powerful leader or party;
b) can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and controlled circumstances; and
(c) is publicly accountable.
Criticism of the Model Police Act, 2006:
1. The first concerned expressed is that some of the words and phrases used in the Model Act have been defined very broadly in Chapter I of the Act. For instance, words and phrases like terrorist activity, militant activities, insurgency and organized crime have been used throughout the Model Act with concomitant police duties as well as powers of the state to declare areas as Special Security Zones. The definition of these terms is not sufficiently precise. Instead, definitions are inclusive- the terms are defined to include activities. It means that many other activities that are not specified can fall within the terms of the definition. This has the potential to impact heavily on the fundamental rights of the community, and broaden the application of the Act well beyond what was anticipated by the Committee.
2. Secondly, grave reservations are expressed regarding the inclusion of Section 22 in Chapter II of the Model Act. Section 22 empowers the Superintendent of Police to appoint any able-bodied and willing person he considers fit to be a Special Police Officer to assist the Police Service. A Special Police Officer appointed under Section 22 would have the same powers and immunities as ordinary police officers, but would not have the opportunity to undertake the comprehensive training a regular officer is required to undergo, in subjects as diverse as the use of fire arms, the principles of law relating to use of force and the legal rights of the public. Experience in Punjab,If more police officers are required in a given situation, proper recruitment and appointment procedures must be followed to induct new officers. An effective police service is a professional, trained policeservice. This is a minimum standard that must not be breached.
3. Thirdly, the concern expressed is regarding the police presence in rural India which continues to be minimal. The rural policing system advocated by the Committee in Chapter VII is based on assistance from local villagers who are appointed as Village Guards and Village Defense Parties. Their functions broadly include: (a) preventive patrolling; (b) securing and preserving scenes of crime; (c) remaining alert and sensitive to any information about any suspicious activity. such information to the police; (d) making arrests and handing arrested people to the police without delay. It has been observed that these provisions have vast scope for abuse. Questions like, “who are suspicious persons?”, and “what is suspicious activity?” are bound to arise. Authorizing Village Guards to arrest and hand over a suspect to police is also an issue. Concern has been expressed regarding the absence of any provision requiring the Village Guards to hand over the suspect within twenty-four hours of arrest, which is the general standard followed in the Cr.P.C. It might result in a concentration of power in the hands of the dominant groups within villages that might be steeped in gender, caste or religious bias. The scope for abuse is vast; especially given the fact that most villagers would not be aware of the ambit of powers of the Village Guard and Defense Party or of their rights vis-à-vis these power structures within the village. Apart from the grave dangers of abuse of power, lack of appropriate skills, experience and training would also mean inefficient, ineffective and unresponsive policing in rural areas. Doubts have been raised about the skills of a villager while preserving and securing crime scenes or in preventive patrolling. It has also been observed that there is no excuse for the failure to provide regular police cover to villages where the majority of Indian population resides.
4. The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration, much of which cannot and need not be incorporated in a statute by Parliament. There are too many details of administration. Some of the sections of this nature which are illustrative of this are amenities in police stations (Section 12(5)), non-statutory activities such as technical and support services (Section 17), state police academies (Section 18),organization of research (Section 19 )qualification for recruitment (Section 25), service conditions (Section 26) ),financial management ( Section56).
Though the Model Police Act, 2006 is not free from criticisms but it is a better substitute to the old and outdated Police Act, 1861
[1] Article 246 of the Indian Constitution.
[2] Police Organization in India, Report of the Commonwealth for Human Rights Initiative, p. 10.
Available at http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_organisations.pdf
[3] Police Act of 1861, section 3.
[4] Section 4 of the Police Act of 1861.
[5] This is handled by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), also under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946. See Police Organization report, at p. 53
[6] Report of the Roundtable Conference on Police Reforms (26-27 June, 2003, CHRI) p. 3, available at
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/rtc_report_trivandrum.pdf. See also, S. P. Singh Makkar and Abdul Hamid, Police Act 1861: A Critique, 4 Cent. Ind. L. Q. 209 (1991).
[7] “It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offences to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend, and forwhose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police-officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect, any drinking-shop, gaming-house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.”
[8] Section 29 of the Police Act 1861
[9] Section 19(c) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978.
[10] section 19(h) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978.
[12] Preamble, Police Act 1861.
[13] Preamble. Model Police Act, 2006.
[14] Section 3, Police Act, 1861
[15] Section 4, Police Act, 1861
[16] Section 39, Model Police Act, 2006.
[17] Section 39(2), Model Police Act, 2006.
[18] Section 51, Model Police Act,2006.
[19] Section 51(3), Model Police Act,2006.
[20] Section 41, Model Police Act,2006.
[21] Section 42, Model Police Act, 2006.
[22] Section 48, Model Police Act,2006.
[23] Section 6, Model Police Act, 2006.
[24] Section 7, Police Act 1861.
[25] Section 13, Model Police Act,2006.
[26] Section 54(4) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[27] Section 53(5) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[28] Section 26(2) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[29] Section 54(Proviso) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[30] Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006
[31] Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006.
[32] Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861.
[33] Section 4 of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[34] Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006
[35] Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006
[36] Section 24(2) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[37] Section 25(1) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[38] Section 35(1) of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[39] Section 35(2) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[40] Preamble, Police Act 1861.
[41] Section 99(b) of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[42] Section 16 of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[43] Section 16(2) of the Model Police Act 2006.
[44] Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[45] Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[46] Section 125(1) of Model Police Act, 2006.
[47] Section 125(2)of Model Police Act, 2006.
[48] Section 124of Model Police Act, 2006.
[49] Section 40 (1)(a) of Model Police Act, 2006
[50] Section 40(2) of Model Police Act 2006.
[51] Section 181 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[52] Section 159 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[53] Section 167 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[54] Section 160 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[55] Section 173 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[56] Section 167(3) Model Police Act, 2006.
[57] Section 177 of the Model Police Act 2006
[58] Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861.
[59] Section 199 and Section 200 of Model Police Act, 2006.