Police Reforms:

Status in Andhra Pradesh

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Why Police Reforms?

 Rule of Law – Bedrock of Democracy

 Rule of Law – a fundamental feature of our

Constitution

 Rule of Law simply implies:

 “Supremacy of law as opposed to arbitrary power”
 “No one is above the law”
 “Equal subjection of all people to the law of the land”
 “Equality before the law”

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Rule of Law & the Role of Police

 Vital role of Police in establishing supremacy of the

Rule of Law
 Role, indeed, of all agencies of Govt. However,
police role particularly crucial, because:
 Police – the most tangible organ of the state
 Main instrument of protection of basic rights of the people
 Pivotal position in justice delivery process

 Important for Police to:

 Be conscious of their accountability to the law. Visibly too.
 Avoid political & other extraneous factors to influence their
actions & decisions in law enforcement
Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)
 Ground Situation: Common Perceptions

 Money, muscle & influence allowed to play a

significant role in law enforcement
 Political/ bureaucratic interference rampant
 Different standards for rich & powerful as against the
poor, under-privileged & non-influential
 Even FIR would not be registered against offenders
of affluence or influence
 Rule of Law – on the brink of collapse; people losing
faith in Justice Delivery System
 Dangerous for the survival of Democracy itself

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 What is Needed?

A Police Force, nay Service, which is:

 Unquestionably fair & impartial in the enforcement of law
 Totally apolitical in its professional work
 Functioning without fear or favour
 Shunning to abuse power or authority
 Well-indoctrinated in our Constitutional values
 Well-motivated & well-committed to ethical values
 Well equipped & well-trained to perform its assigned functions

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Police Reform – Main Purpose

 To forestall political etc. extraneous interference in

discharge of their functions by police personnel

 To protect upright & service-oriented police personnel

against victimisation or harassment

 To highlight the need for upgradation of training &

capacity-building of our police

 To enforce accountability for any wrong-doing by police

personnel

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Police Reform Initiatives: Chronology

 Police Commissions constituted by State Govts.:

 Kerala (1959)
 West Bengal (1960-61)
 Bihar (1961)
 Punjab (1961)
 Maharashtra (1964)
 Madhya Pradesh (1966)
 Delhi (1966)
 Uttar Pradesh (1970-71)
 Assam (1971)
 Tamil Nadu (1971)
 Andhra Pradesh (1984)

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Social Violence & Police Response

Commissions/Committees Of Central Govt:

 National Police Commission (1977-81)
 Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998)
 Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000)
 Group of Ministers on National Security (2000-01)
 Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms
(2002-03)
 MHA Review Committee on Police Reforms (2005)
 Soli Sorabjee Committee on Model Police Act (2006)
 Prof Madhava Menon Committee on Draft National Policy on
Criminal Justice (2007)
 Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2006-08)

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Obdurate Resistance to Reform

 Brazen insincerity in implementation of

recommendations

 Even the Supreme Court Directions of Sept. 2006,

in Prakash Singh case, ignored so far

 Defaulters include not only States but Union

Territories too

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Implementation of Supreme Court Directives
:The Andhra Pradesh Example

 Direction No. 1: State Security Commission

 Brazen non-compliance. Commission not constituted despite
repeated rejection of all objections of State Govt by the
Supreme Court
 Direction No. 2: Selection & Tenure of DGP
 Not complied

 Direction No. 3: Fixed Tenure for other Police Officers

 GO issued in Feb 2007 assuring 1-year tenure (not 2 years).
Even that Order remains on paper only. Blatant transfers still
rampant

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Implementation of Supreme Court Directives
:The Andhra Pradesh Example

 Direction No. 4: Separation of Crime Investigation/

L&O
 Not effected. Not even ordered.

 Direction No. 5: Creation of Police Establishment

Board
 G.O. issued but the Board assigned limited functions, far too
short of Supreme Court stipulations

 Direction No. 6: Police Complaint Authorities

 Not complied, even on paper

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)

 Consequences of Continued Defiance

 Repeated litigation on DGP’s selection

 Transfers-postings of SHOs & other police personnel:
 Being effected on political & other nefarious considerations
 Assuming proportions of an industry
 Collapse of command & control structure
 Diffused accountability for lack of performance

 Gross deterioration of working environment

 Non- sustainability of good practices
 Access to justice for common citizen – a major
casualty
Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)
 Stakeholders in Police System

 Executive:
 Political leadership
 Bureaucracy
 Police themselves

 Judiciary
 Civil Society – the people

Absence of public pressure – major

reason for indifference to police
reforms.
Need for them to assert themselves
Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)
Social Violence & Police Response

THANK YOU

Kamal Kumar, IPS (Retd)