Answer

Introduction

The police in India, governed largely by the colonial Police Act of 1861, remains the primary institution responsible for maintaining law and order. Despite Supreme Court directives (2006), multiple commissions like the National Police Commission (1979), and reform initiatives such as the SMART police vision, deep-rooted political interference and structural inertia continue to prevent transformation, undermining accountability and the rule of law.

Body

Persistent Issues in Indian Policing

• Executive Dominance in Crises: Police often functioned as mute spectators or excess enforcers under political orders.
  Eg: During the Emergency (1975), Shah Commission exposed subversion of police; in 1984 anti-Sikh riots, police remained passive amid carnage.
• Weak Implementation of Supreme Court Directives: Most states only complied on paper, without institutionalising independence.
  Eg: Supreme Court (2006) mandated Police Establishment Board, and Complaints Authorities, but political class resisted reforms.
• Outdated Colonial Framework: The Police Act, 1861 still governs most states, prioritising control over service.
• Lack of Autonomy in Leadership and Tenure: Frequent transfers reduce operational efficiency and morale.
• Overburdened and Dual Functions: Separation of law-and-order and investigation remains unimplemented.
  Eg: Supreme Court directed metropolitan towns to separate investigation from policing, but states largely ignored it
  

Measures to Ensure Accountable and Modern Police

Accountable Police Force

• Strengthening Institutional Independence: Establishing State Security Commissions to shield police from political interference and ensure autonomy.
  Eg: The Supreme Court’s directive in 2006 for independent State Security Commissions aimed at protecting police autonomy from political pressures.
• Clear and Transparent Accountability Mechanisms: Setting up Complaints Authorities at state and district levels to monitor police conduct.
• Separate Investigative and Law-and-Order Functions: Dividing investigative and law-and-order responsibilities to improve efficiency and accountability.
  Eg: The 2006 Supreme Court order to separate law-and-order functions from investigations in metropolitan cities aimed to improve police efficiency and accountability.
• Performance Evaluation and Incentives for Good Conduct: Implementing transparent performance evaluations based on conduct and public feedback.

Modern Police Force

• Investing in Technology and Infrastructure: Providing police forces with modern technologies like digital databases, surveillance systems, and forensic tools.
  Eg: The Delhi Police have introduced AI-based surveillance systems under Safe City Project,  to improve crime detection and enhance police visibility in urban spaces.
• Training and Capacity Building: Regular training in areas such as cybercrime, counter-terrorism, and gender sensitivity.
  Eg: The National Police Academy offers specialized training programs in counter-terrorism and cybercrime to prepare officers for contemporary challenges.
• Improved Police Leadership and Fixed Tenure: Ensuring fixed tenure for officers and merit-based promotions to curb political influence.
• Community Engagement and Public Interface: Promoting SMART policing to enhance community relations and police responsiveness.
  Eg: Bangalore’s community policing model, with regular engagement meetings and safety programs, enhances police-public relations.

Conclusion 

The Prakash Singh Committee (2006 SC directives) emphasized insulating police from political pressures, ensuring fixed tenure, and setting up independent complaint authorities. For India to achieve its vision of a $30 trillion economy by 2047, a professional, autonomous, and modern police force rooted in the rule of law is indispensable to secure a stable law-and-order foundation for Viksit Bharat.

DOWNLOAD PDF