Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Democracy stands for popular rule. Popular rule implies mass involvement of
people in the political process. Mass involvement of people necessitates rules and laws
and an agency to enforce it. Here lies the relevance of police in a democracy.
of the country and identifies self-interests with the national interest. In this sense, every
person is police for himself in a democracy. This being only an ideal situation, field
rules and laws and police the national interests from the assaults of parochial and anti-
democracy.
Police is a double-edged sword. Its front is national interests and safety and
security of the national life. Its one edge accounts for policing of the people; the other,
for policing the process of governance. Though the two functions towards the well-being
of the country appear intrenchant prima facie, they do make significant difference in the
actual process of policing. In one, police police the ruled from the side of the
government. In the other, police police the rules from the side of the people as true
power-wielders. While in one, it is the will of the rulers that prevails in driving the police
to police, in the other, it is the will of the people as expressed through the public media,
bind the police to police in a particular way. Police in a democracy are no more than a
system driven by the pulls and counterpulls of the government and the public opinion in
one hand, and the laws in force and the safety and security of the national life on the
other. For the infaust police, the diverse contradictory pulls and pressures only multiply
with the ascensive complexity of the national life. This situation of policing in a
democracy makes policing an infinitely more difficult task than otherwise by forcing
police to make decisions and take sides. This may be an opportunity for better service in
society and the nation. Policing in a democracy involves keeping eyes ears and even
olfactory organs open with an argute faculty of conceptualisation to understand the fast
changing dynamics neath the frontal layers of the society and an ability for fast responses
atmosphere with group interests in constant conflict. The kaleidoscope of changing faces
of the society is best accounted by the media in diverse forms. Though government is
expected to be alert to the needs of the society, factors like inefficiency and corruption
more often than not work against social vectors and lead against social sensibilities.
Policing under such a government hardly fulfil the needs of the national well-being. An
avizefull police can always comprehend the complexity of situation through media and
judge the right course of action on its own wisdom. However, media in a democratic
ambience is not infallible. Public opinion is more an artificially created venal commodity
than a natural phenomenon in a democracy. Media has become a hi-tech business in the
age of power through elections. Most tools of creating and arousing public opinion are
trumped-up by the media may not lead police anywhere. Rather, it may mislead police in
its pursuit of justice and well-being of the country. Ergo, perpetual pernoctation is the
watch-word of a democratic police while being sensitive to the needs of the government
au reste the ripples of the public opinion with the national interests and its well-being as
laws and police form a holy trinity in a democracy and each is sine qua non for the other
two in the system. The fact is that laws are mutable. They are enacted to meet the
challenges of the society from time to time. Laws are collective responses of the
legislators to a given situation. Chances are that laws in force are not adequate to handle
extant challenges in the field. It is a serious problem, police face. Policing is not exactly
like a football game wherein rules of the game are paramound and goals are scored selon
les regles. Laws are sine dubio paramount. Equally paramount is the safety and security
of the national life. Here lies the dilemma of the police. When the two paramount
objects refuse to go pari passu, police find themselves in the precarious position of
making a choice between the two as in national security decisions. Laws have to be
broken in the larger interests of the country while national interests cannot wait for the
enactment of requisite laws. The situation leads to human rights violations and popular
condemnation of police in some cases. Police have to bear the humiliation with dignity
in the interests of their professional objectives. The pith of the issue is that what
constitutes national interests and what not, and how far police to be trusted in deciding
where they can be given leeway to break laws in the presumed interests of the safety and
security of the national life. Even while laws provide for action, laws only speak what to
do; it is left to police how to do and how much to do. In the polluted atmosphere of
criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of police, neither the police nor the
of such a magnitude. The need is a sensitive balance between the laws in force and the
safety and security of the national life. Police in a democracy need to be perpetually alert
to both the needs and find an aurea mediocritas to fine-tune its professional objectives.
factor that works on its is pulls and counterpulls. The contradictory pulls and pressures
are the clamour of the public for professional and honest policing on the hand and the call
of politicians and bureaucrats steeped in personal interests for work as their handmaids
on the other. The cardinal issue is where the loyalty of police should lie in the exercise of
government or the public interests? People in government claim that the first loyalty of
the police being to government is en regle. Their argument is based on the position that
police form a part of the government. Men and officers of the police force are appointed
by the government; they are subject to conduct rules, administration and superintendence
of the government. The other side claims that the police are responsible only to the laws
in force and for nothing else. Such a commitment by police is the foundation of the
administration of justice. This is the situation even in England from where India adopted
the gestalt of its democratic system. In the famous Blackburn case in England, Lord
Denning in reference to police, pronounced “,… is not the servant of anyone, save of the
law itself. No minister of the crown can tell him that the must or must not keep
observation on this place or that; or that he must or must not prosecute this man or that
one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies
justice and safety to all strata of people and ensure equitable enforcement of law sine ira
et studio. This implies special care and protection to weaker sections en face exploitation
from the powerful and involves contranatant stimuli. This is where the sphere of social
Group dynamics make conflicts pronounced in a democracy. The role police play in
social conflicts have a major say in determining the futuristic pattern of society. The
edge executor. A thinking police is a special need of a democracy. Laws only say what to
do and what not to do; it is left to police to decide how to do and how much to do. It
decides where, when, how and how much invokes what laws. Only a thinking police can
handle the responsibility perficiently. It has to deal with a variety of situations of different
points of time in enforcement of laws. Failure cripples the evolution of social system to
social justice.
A special feature of police in a democracy is involving people in policing. People
The regular police force is just a skeleton for the true policing efforts of a democracy
wherein every citizen is a policeman of his country. The regular police force is just a
reticulation with necessary structure, resources and expertise at its disposal towards that
end. The potentiality of the citizens to police themselves being fully exploited is an
democracy without people being activity involved. The involvement can be either formal
or informal. In informal involvement, services of eligible citizens are enlisted for policing
under diverse categories of schemes provided by police Acts like Special police Officers,
Additional Police, Traffic Wardens, Village Police or even Home Guards as provided by
the Home Guards enactments. The citizens so enlisted help the regular police in various
police duties with special rights and privileges under the supervision and
superintendence of the police force. The services are normally voluntary. The skill of the
regular police lies in making the voluntary schemes attractive and popular and enlisting
enthusiastic citizens to its fold in large numbers. Not much is done in India in this area.
Nor real efforts are made to activate such voluntary schemes provided by the law. The
result is that Indian police sweat out without a mass base in a maelstrom and bear
The informal involvement covers the use of citizens during the policing. The help
the citizens render to police varies from being informers, witnesses and signatories to
various panchanamas in criminal cases to patrolling in groups in strife-stricken or
dacoity-infested areas at nights. These duties are principal to the success of policing.
The skill of the police in enlisting the cooperation of respectable citizens plays an
important role in making policing successful. Not much attention is given to this skill in
the present scheme of things in police. The result is poor policing for lack of
involvement of the people. Stock witnesses are the order of the day. Willing cooperation
of the public in policing is a rarity. Police are more hated, feared and distanced than
Involvement breeds a sense of belonging. It brings police and the public closer.
This is a major step towards the relevance of police in a democracy. The sense of
participation in policing helps to appreciate the problems of the police and policing. It
The relevance of police in a democracy lies in the direct interaction between the
people and their police. Utility of police lies in its usefulness to the people and the
country. A two-way channel between the people and the police makes a democracy really
democratic. Periodical meetings between the public and the police at various levels serve
the purpose. People from all walks of life of a specific area interact with the police
officers of the area in formal meetings held periodically on policing issues. The exercise
helps the public and the police know each other better and appreciate mutual limitations
in right perspective. It makes better cooperation between the public and the police
possible. Informal contacts between the police and the public at different levels also help
the process. It boosts mutual confidence to the benefits of both the sides and makes
between the two to the advantage of both the sides as an essential ingredient of good
the Goa Police Bill, 1995. The bill modelled on Singapore police, provides for creation
property in specified areas apart from being empowered to maintain law and order,
preserve public peace and prevent and detect crime within that area. The auxilliary police
force enjoys police powers and protections provided by law on par with the regular
provided every act of the auxilliary police force is subjected to effective control,
supervision and superintendence of the regular police force to avoid misuse of powers.
The idea of people policing the people should not degenerate to a situation where bigger
fishes gorge the smaller ones or the fittest only survive. Democracy is not a free-play of
whether they are weak or powerful. Giving them policing powers to police themselves is
in line with the highest traditions of the democracy. In the circumstances of the corrupt
society, the vigil of the regular police as the symbol of the state power is absolutely
necessary to make the auxilliary police force behave within the parameters of the law.
The same thing can be said about provisions in the Bill to punish uncivilised conduct like
spitting, smoking, urinating, throwing garbage etc in public places. They are bound to be
appreciated in an enlightened democracy as a measure of cleansing their cities and
inculcating decent and healthy practices among them while in an unelightened democracy
like India, there is bound to be opposition to the provisions as an intrusion on their right
of doing what they want and irresponsible and sensation-mongering Indian media is
bound to linger on the protests as an event of national significance. Both sides are the
The options before the police in a democracy are often a bundle of nonoptions.
They find themselves in the precarious situation of neither taking a decision nor avoiding
it. It is like being caught between the devil and the deep sea. Democracy lets loose
contradictory forces to pounce on police from all sides. A police not steeped in
professional resolve gets seized in the melee and exposes itself to grievous errors. A
good example is the case of dreaded underworld don Arun Gawli of Mumbai. The world
knows that he is a dangerous criminal with scores of criminal cases pending against him.
Mumbai police obviously is helpless in containing his criminal activities. Large sections
of the people in Dagdi Chawi, Mumbai and Maharastra idolise and support the criminal.
Democracy dictates respect to the feelings and sensitivities of all sections of the society.
Shiva Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and his party called him as their answer to dreaded
underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and tried to promote him and his gangsters. He
become a respected figure to Mumbai police under Shiva Sena Chief Minister, once he
established his Akhila Bharatiya Sena (ABS) at Mumbai and other places of Maharastra,
he fell foul with Shiva Sena and its supremo and political parties like congress tried to
woo him and his muscle of labour orgnisations to their fold. Then Mubai police under
Shiva Sena government realised that Arun Gawli and his criminal activities are security
threat to the nation and he was arrested and detained under NSA for a couple of exttortion
cases and harbouring criminals. Nagapur Bench of Mumbai High Court declared the
arrest and detention under NSA as illegal. The episode explains all the maladies of
police, lax judicia system, constricting group dynamics and the ability of criminal
elements to take advantage of the Achilles’ heel of a system. A flexible police is the
democracy. Police are caught in the web of the dynamics of a democracy. In a situation
where government and power depend upon the vote banks of groups, the task of police
weaving through these groups to police them and bring wrong-doers to book pro bono
publico is an unenviable task demanding tact. In the notorious Shivani acid attack case of
Jaipur, a 17 year-old girl, Shivani Jadeja on way to school from her residence on April 12,
1997 was attacked with acid, allegedly by the son of the transport minister of the state
and his friends; the state police turned impervious to the statement of the victim, recorded
by them and her letter addressed to the Jaipur Superintendent of Police about the
involvement of the minister’s son in the offence. Even public protests and agitations by
women’s groups and the interest of the media in the case failed to deter the state police
from its inaction against the actual offenders. Even the state police chief gave evasive
answers to the media about action against the offenders named by Shivani. This is the
quantum of political pressure on policing. It was only after two representations from
socially concious organisations being treated as Public Interest Litigations that Rajastan
High Court directed the state government to withdraw the case from the state police and
get the investigation done by the CBI. This is the extent of the credibility of the police
under political pressure. Police just cannot do justice to justice under the extant
democratic pulls and pressures. Every interest group in a democracy is powerful with
scores of followers. Police by the very nature of their work cannot please every side and
dynamics of Indian kind, law, justice and propriety make little sense.
strength in a democracy. Any move against the interests of this group is bound to create
serious problems to police. A police officer with a commitment to crush crime syndicates
and their criminal activities on coming to power meets with dramatic rise in crimes and
law and order problems in his area to the extent that he soon realise that he has no
alternative to keep the underworld on right side were he to save his professional
reputation, his new position and peace in his area. A few fools who fail to read the
writings on the wall, get thrown out of their post and avoid any responsible job thereafter
on the charge of being incapable of controlling crimes and maintaining law and order.
Cooperation of the powerful criminal groups is conditio sine qua non for smooth policing
a democracy. The recent example is a state capital in India. Its new Police
Commissioner adopted a soft approach to powerful mafia gangs of the city and shut eyes
to the flourishing business of cabaret, live bands and night-clubs. The result was a
relatively crime-free tenure for him in the city. But, he rubbed the media on the wrong
side on the first day of his taking charge in the city. As a consequence, he had to bear an
unfavourable media throughout. The next Police Commissioner of the city was after
stopping the menace of cabaret, live bands and night clubs and containing organised
crimes in the city. The immediate response to the new Police Commissioner was
inordinate rise in crimes like chain-snatching , kidnapping, extoration, gang war, house-
breaking and dacoity and law and order disturbances. It was the crime syndicates
sending signals to come to terms with their existence and activities. The political
pressures the underworld weilds au reste the warning shots are capable of bringing a
practical police officer to his senses. He is forced to compromise his convictions to retain
his position. This is how police is under seize in a democracy. Police derive strength
byadhering to law and justice. Once off the track to aggrace political masters. Thus
develops a vicious circle that leads police to be perpetually under the beck and call of the
politicians in power. The beginning of the collision of politicians and the police in a
the only instrument available to bring people to their senses and to the needs of the laws.
It is unlike other forms of government, wherein other forms are created to bring the
people to submission to the will of the rulers. Private armies in whatever name sans the
leash of law, operate as executors of the will of the rulers in nondemocracies. Indian
police these days with its deep politicisation is gradually approximating to the sad state.
Mass transfer of police officers at all levels with the change of government, use of
political rivals in check etc are just the signs on the surface of this tragic malady. The
slant is not in the interests of democracy, for, the strength of democracy is pra rata to the
professional resolve of the police. A weakened and ineffective police is a sure sign of
crumbling democracy. A democracy just cannot stand up without the spine of the police,
especially while people are yet to realise their democratic responsibilities. Strengthening
the police is the foremost need of firming up democratic traditions. How soon India