The need to provide autonomy to the police department in order to free it from political influence as well as interference has remained a mere ‘sacred wish’ with however no effort made in this direction by any government. Though political leaders when in Opposition have made it a point to stress the need for autonomy, it is common for them to forget their promise whenever in power.
Had the demands placed forth by the BJP on improvement in the police department functioning, when it was in the opposition, implemented now when it is in power for the very first time, then the Karnataka Police Department would have been probably a model to the whole of the nation. In reality however, the present ruling party is unwilling to let go its control over the police department for any reason. Which chief minister or home minister would be willing to deprive themselves of a facility which is misused to silence or suppress their opponents? But it is nothing but a surprise that the BJP which has come to power after making people believe that it was a party with a difference, is also unduly interested in controlling the police department. The main reason for the unwillingness of the ruling parties to let go their control over the department is the feeling that they would be in power forever. It is only when the police department services are misused against them, when they are out of power, that they realize the importance of freeing the department from political interference.
Following the Supreme Court directive to all states to bring about reforms in the police department, the state government had formulated a draft bill supposedly incorporating guidelines to bring about reforms in the departmental functioning, two years ago itself. But the records in this regard had not been released to enable public debate and the same has still not become an Act. Neither the then government nor the present government had showed the will power to place the same before the House and pass it. Already, several thinkers as well as human rights organizations have highlighted the loopholes of this draft bill. There is also an allegation that the government has not come forward to duly enforce the seven measures recommended by the Supreme Court to bring about reforms in the department.
1. Though the state government had announced the formation of the State Security Commission as per the Supreme Court directive, to oversee the functioning of the police department, of its seven members, five are representatives of the government itself. The chief minister, home minister, chief secretary, home secretary and DGP are the government representatives in the Commission. This is against the SC ruling that the Police Commission should be a body of civil society aimed at providing a humane face to the police department. Another glaring loophole of the draft bill is that there are no revolutionary ideas with regard to the formation of the Commission. Lacking enough power, the Commission which ought to be a link between the police department and the public and should have control over the department, has no such power.
2. Though the government ought to appoint one of the two individuals suggested by the Commission as the DGP, it also gives scope for the Government to retain with it the power to remove any person from the post of the DGP. As per the Supreme Court ruling, a DGP should remain in power for a minimum of two years. But, as the draft bill gives no such guarantee, it is described as a clear cut violation of the SC ruling.
3. The Supreme Court has even suggested formation of a Complaints Authority for investigation into complaints against police officials and staff at the state and district level. The Court’s wish was to see the independent functioning of these authorities. But, as the government has retained with it the power to appoint members and presidents to these authorities, the very purpose of their formation would be defeated. There is also a mention in the draft bill that a complaint should be lodged with the Authority as a last resort after complaints with all other officials concerned fails to deliver results. The ridiculousness of this point need not be mentioned separately. When the Supreme Court has directed formation of such an Authority to deliver early justice to the complainants, what is the underlying objective behind the draft bill saying “Come to us as a last resort when your complaints with all other authorities prove futile�
4. The draft bill has weakened the formation of the Police Board intended to oversee the transfers and promotions in the department. The Board constitution is such that there is no scope to prevent political interference in the department.
5. The draft bill which empowers the government to form special security zones to curb terrorist activities in the state, also empowers it to arrest suspicious persons. This, it is believed may end up in misuse of this power by targeting it against human rights activists.
6. The draft bill also empowers the government to appoint ‘Special Police Officers’ of its choice. But, it is silent with regard to the eligibility and suitable training needed for such officers. If such rules are misused, then there are clear cut chances of individuals faithful to the ruling party getting deputed as special police officers. This would eventually lead to heightened political interference in the police department. The draft bill however says nothing on the duties and responsibilities of the special police pfficers. An attempt to defeat the very purpose of the Supreme Court order and to manipulate it to suit one’s own needs, is very much noticeable in the draft bill.
Related news: