Analysis and Need for Reform in Current Police System of Criminal Justice System

I. Introduction

Since the early 1990s, violent crime rates have decreased dramatically. According to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, as the incidence of mass shootings has risen, concern about domestic terrorism has grown even within law enforcement. Even while violent crime has recently increased, which some academics attribute to COVID-19 spill overs related to high unemployment and underemployment, it is still far lower than it was thirty years ago.

The police are increasingly seen as a remnant of colonialism and less as the source of the government's power than as an essential piece in its machinery. After the uprising in 1857, the first Police commission was established.² In 1861, the first Indian Police Act was adopted and put into effect. Following our declaration of independence in 1857, the Indian Police Act (IPA) of 1861, which was swiftly enacted in response to the Revolt of 1857, has dominated our government. The Sir A.H.L. Curzon Commission was established in 1902 and 1903 to look at issues related to the 1861 Indian Police Act and provide recommendations for changes to the police service. It was stated that more police officers need to come from the neighbourhood.

The National Police Committee was established as the country's first national organisation upon its independence in 1978.³ It covered a wide range of topics, such as the duties, responsibilities, and interactions between the police and the general public in addition to the organisational structure of the force. It submitted eight papers between 1979 and 1981, the Model Police Act being one of them. Numerous recommendations by the National Commission on Policing were produced, however the most of them were never put into action.

To weaken the grip of the police state on civilised society, however, several measures have been launched recently. Due to significant progress and protests, particularly in the years after independence, the public's expectations of police officers have changed significantly. Due to the effects of elements like technology and digitalization on both crime and investigation, the nature of crimes has altered. It is necessary to entirely reorganise a colonial administration's 19th-century structure. Modernizing state laws and creating a centralised law based on the idea of the welfare state are required for today's welfare societies to function efficiently.

The police play an important role in the state's legal system. The majority of the time, when people hear the word "police," they picture state agents whose job it is to uphold the law, mainly through enforcing the standard criminal Code.⁴ The 1929 Royal Commission on the Police Powers and Procedures said that a police officer is someone who is paid to do duties that, given the choice, they would perform willingly. A state's executive civil force that is tasked with upholding law, suppressing crime, and apprehending offenders is referred to in contemporary parlance as the police. Nowadays, police officers are needed for more than simply maintaining public order and catching criminals; they also assist with matters such as traffic enforcement, crowd management at festivals and other public events, flood rescue, and mediating small conflicts between members of the public.

The definitional component of police, however, is not this paper's only area of interest. This essay's review of current initiatives to strengthen India's police force will be as stated in the title. Where does the Indian police force's work most often encounter problems? What steps should we take to address these issues? The legislation as it now exists with relation to this topic will be the main topic of the next parts of this research paper. To keep things on track, we'll quickly cover the historical background of the Indian police system before getting into the meat of the discussion.

II. Significance of police reforms

1. Arrest

According to a number of reports, the police have overused their arrest authority. The National Police Commission asserts that a number of instances of misconduct and corruption have been caused by the police's discretionary power to initiate an arrest. As a result, arrests may only be made when doing so serves the public good or is absolutely necessary for the current arrest. Despite the requirement to make an arrest in situations involving "cognizable offences," police are regularly observed conducting arrests purely in reaction to public pressure and to demonstrate their efficacy. The police force must maintain its impartiality and refrain from supporting the political agenda of the state in any manner. As we just saw, the Telangana Police Department was praised widely for their interaction with the rape suspect.⁵

"The third degree" refers to the employment of unethical tactics to pressure a suspect into divulging information or admitting guilt. A police officer may use harsh tactics in high-profile situations, such as dacoity, gang rape, or terrorism, in order to get false evidence. So's a common misconception that using physical force to extract a guilty confession is one of the best ways to do it. The National Human Rights Commission discovered 555 instances of potentially misleading contacts between October 2009 and February 2013 in a research from that year.⁶

The safety of individuals and their basic freedoms are seriously threatened by stolen identities. The Supreme Court was also made aware of the main issue with the excessive usage of handcuffs. The Indian Constitution forbids the use of handcuffs on a person against their consent under Articles 1410, 1911, and 2112. Ravikant S. Patil, a murder suspect who was bound with ropes, successfully sued the State of Maharashtra for Rs. 10,000 in a writ suit. Similar verbal abuse and public humiliation were meted out to petitioners 1 and 2 while they were being held in police in Sunil Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, a case decided by the Supreme Court, required handcuffing protocols. The following ideas were put forth:

First of all, police are only permitted to use handcuffs on people who either: 1) are charged with a non-bailable offence and have a criminal record, or 2) exhibit signs of desperation by behaving violently, obstructively, or as if they are ready to run away or commit suicide.

The daily diary should include provide a justification for the convicts' use of restraints.

Third, before bringing a defendant in handcuffs to or from court, the police must get approval from the judge.

Before the suspect is brought in for interrogation, the magistrate who will hear the case should ascertain the cause for the defendant's handcuffing.

2. Custody-Related Deaths

The frequency of deaths in detention is one such indicator of police carelessness in India. By law, any deaths that take place while a person is being held by the police must be reported to the NHRC within 24 hours. There have been more cases of public interest litigation filed before the Supreme Court because there have been more fatalities while in police custody and instances of police abuse.⁷ In”D.K. Basu v. The State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court specified a set of precise rules that would serve as the rights of an arrested individual.⁸ The following ideas were put forth:

1. The officer performing the arrest must have an arrest badge that is clearly visible. Name and rank of the officer must be shown clearly.

2. The incarceration must be officially documented by the arresting officer. This memorandum's legitimacy must be attested to by the presence of at least one witness. This witness might be the detainee's acquaintance, relative, or a resident of the area where the arrest was conducted.

3. The arrest must be disclosed to at least one of the detained person's friends or acquaintances.

4. The constitutional right of detainees to have a third party informed of their arrest must be explained to them.

5. It's crucial to enter the time and date of the arrest in a journal once it occurs.

6. The detainee's body must also be examined for any injuries, which must be noted on the inspection form if any are discovered.

7. You must be examined by a licenced physician who has received government approval every 48 hours.

8. The illaqa magistrate must get all paperwork.

9. Before any questioning starts, the prisoner must be informed of his constitutional right to a counsel and given the opportunity to speak with one.

10. Within 12 hours of the police making the arrest, the arresting officer must contact the district and state control room.”

This case also demonstrated how torture and other forms of inmate abuse are against the Rule of Law since presidential authority arises from and is constrained by the law. The Model Police Act, 2006 should be emphasised in the reforms, and violators should face consequences, such as termination for failing to file a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Another crucial factor is helping a person who has been hurt by police officers. Although there are programmes in place to recompense victims of police, if specific officers are not held accountable for their acts, this will not work as a deterrent.

III. Legal framework in india

(A) Criminal Liability in the Law

Officials working for the government have certain safeguards in place to prevent them from being held criminally liable for any actions taken by law enforcement in the course of their official responsibilities, as outlined in the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973.” For the protection of 26 police officers, the provisions of sections 197 and 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) have been maintained. When a police officer is accused of wrongdoing "whether acting or purporting to act within the course of his official obligations," disciplinary action cannot be taken without the prior approval of the Central or State Government, as stated above. Sections 129–131 of the Criminal Procedure Code "deal with controlling an unlawful gathering that is deemed to have caused a breach of peace," and these provisions make it impossible for the government to sue police officers for any actions taken in accordance with them.⁹ Section 132 expressly forbids such conduct. Police officers are protected under Section 132 if they can show that they attempted to disperse an unlawful assembly without resorting to force and that other means of dispersal had failed.

In the case "P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty," two police officers were accused of detaining a complainant against his will and assaulting him over the course of many days. The Supreme Court's division bench had to rule on a "defence raised by police officers under Section 64 of the Kerala Police Act, which provides procedural safeguards against legal proceedings brought against police officers acting in good faith in the execution of any duty imposed or authority conferred by the state." The Supreme Court has said that the reasoning for this clause may be found in Chapter 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.¹⁰

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of performing his duty." The Court also provides an example of how a police officer violates Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code when he unlawfully holds a suspect for more than twenty-four hours or physically assaults a civilian. In a police torture case that lasted three days, a single bench of the Gujarat High Court relied on this interpretation of Section 197.

A case involving widespread human rights violations was heard by a divisional bench of the High Court of Allahabad. These violations included the shooting of protesters at a protest assembly, which resulted in the deaths of twenty-four people, as well as mass murder, rape, unlawful arrests, and a high number of prisoners per capita. Similarly, "Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti v. State UP" is another lawsuit that has been filed.

When the matter of a State Government's sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. arose, the division bench ruled that "it is not every conduct done by a public servant while on duty which comes under the ambit of S. 197 but only those actions which have direct linkage to the fulfilment of official duties." According to "Privy Council as well as Apex Court judgments,"16 acts such as "arbitrary restraint and detention," "planting weapons to show false recovery," "deliberate shooting of unarmed protesters," "fabricating or framing misleading records," "commission of rape and violence," and others are considered or believed to have been committed in the course of official duties.¹¹

The following inferences may be drawn from the existing examples. The procedural protection provided by Section 197 Cr.P.C. only applies if the offending police officer can demonstrate that the alleged criminal behaviour was done while carrying out official obligations. When evaluating whether or not to file charges against a police officer, it is necessary to take into account whether or not the officer's acts were in the course of his official duties. Second, whether or not the activities were beyond the scope of official responsibilities depends on whether or not the police are officially authorised to conduct that task.

(B) The Supreme Court's Orders

A former police officer with a stellar reputation, Prakash Singh, filed a case in the public interest that led to the 2006 Supreme Court decision. The decision required many institutional measures to be put in place to insulate police from unlawful outside influences, provide them enough professional autonomy, and ensure they are held responsible for any police or illegal behaviour. The issue of unexpected transfers, which were utilised as a means to "manage" or "influence" officers, was also addressed. In accordance with the legislation, the following institutional processes were carried out:

Each state should form a nonpartisan State Security Commission directed by the Chief Minister/Home Minister and consisting of the Leader of the Opposition, a retired High Court Judge, a few nonpartisan independent persons, etc. In this way, the Commission would achieve the checks and balances goal of limiting the state government's or the ruling party's proxy's unfettered "superintendence" over the police.

A Police Establishment Board as a collegium, consisting of the DGP and four other senior police officers, makes decisions on transfers, postings, and other matters pertaining to officers up to Dy SP rank and makes recommendations to the state government on similar matters pertaining to officers of higher ranks.

Accusations of serious misconduct against senior officers, and officers at and below the Dy SP level, including custodial deaths/rapes, are investigated by Police Complaint Authorities led by retired judges, one at the state level and one in each district.

One further crucial rule was to have a transparent, merit-based selection process for the DGP. The impact of unfavourable external circumstances on such appointments would be reduced. All operational authorities, including District SPs and SHOs, shall serve for a minimum fixed period of two years, per the directive.

There was a distinct hope that implementing these standards would aid in integrating functional autonomy and accountability, the two essential pillars of democratic policing, into police operations and so provide a boost to other required reforms.

Initially slow to respond, governments eventually announced "compliance," but with a more belligerent tone, after exhausting all efforts to have the directives "examined" and weakened. The Supreme Court-appointed monitoring body expressed "absolute dismay" in its August 2010 report at the states' total lack of interest in altering how the police function.

After 15 long years, the current status of implementation of the standards is dismal. There is not a single state or territory in the union that has fully complied with all of the regulations, even on paper, much alone in practise.¹² Attempts by the Supreme Court to make police more professional and accountable are being thwarted, according to a new assessment, because "the states are stymying the checks and balances that the Supreme Court orders aim to install."

(C) Implementation of Supreme Court orders

The Union and the States were jointly obligated to comply with the Court's rulings by the end of 2006. The original cut-off date of March 1, 2007 was then extended to March 31, 2007. As stated in the ruling, the orders "would continue in effect until the Central Government draughts a model Police Act and/or the State Government executes the requisite legislative steps." At the outset, the Court had direct jurisdiction over all Union states and territories.

In 2008, however, it established a Monitoring Committee of only three members, with a requirement that each state conduct conformity evaluations and submit regular reports for a period of two years. The Supreme Court appointed Justice Clarence Thomas to head a committee that would provide its findings in 2010.

An expression of "dismay at the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being demonstrated by the States" was used. In light of the 2012 rape episodes, "another committee constituted under Justice Verma to investigate amendments to criminal law" expressed disappointment that the Court's seven instructions in the Prakash Singh case had not been carried out.

If we take a look at the current condition of SC regulations, we see a dismal picture. Even if the president of certain states has recently issued directions, seventeen others have passed a law that is considered as confirming the status quo in a court that seems to be disregarding the directives. It includes places like Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, and Uttarakhand.

The Central Government need to pass the Delhi Police Bill when it is presented to them. The Honorable Prime Minister published his vision for a SMART Police force in November 2014, which called for officers to be strict, sensitive, modern, mobile, attentive, responsible, trustworthy, accountable, and well-versed in technology. There must be reforms and explanations.

The Indian community has a major impact on reforms to improve the police force. Ultimately, the people's opinions have the most weight in a democracy. In order to remain in office, elected officials must have the backing of the people. When they see an issue that may help them gain votes, they jump on it. Lacking public pressure, the political elite may ignore the need for police reform because it is in their self-interest to do so. For this reason, it is crucial for the public as a whole to organise and put pressure on the governing elite.

Indians are typically disinterested in change, despite having the most to gain from it. This is despite the fact that they are the ones who are most likely to suffer the repercussions of inadequate police.¹³ They need to be made aware of the importance of their position, and community leaders and NGOs may achieve this via coordinated campaigns that make extensive use of social, print, digital, and visual media. Political leaders at all levels should be made aware of the long-term benefits of strong law enforcement. We need an approach with several components.

India's police forces will not be able to function effectively unless state and federal reforms are updated to reflect the country's present situation.

1. Abolishing the Nexus

In order to separate the administration of law from its implementation, the connection between politicians and police personnel must be removed. If a member of a political party is being prosecuted for a particular crime, they cannot compete for office, serve on a legislative body, or even enter the Parliament. In actuality, a separate statutory authority is required to oversee both the executive and legislative branches.

2. Resolution Powers

If police departments are accused of misconduct, an independent body should be set up to investigate the allegations. The Model Police Act of 2000 specifies the need for this body, along with the power to make appointments and promotions. It should include those who have served on the High Court, retired police officers, and public officials from other states, members of the civil society, and others. All problems of state and national security will be handled by the governor of the state and the president of India.

3. The Advancing of Technology

CCTV cameras in public areas, cutting-edge tactics like drone and UAV surveillance, and a centrally maintained database of professional criminals are all recommended.

4. Conducting continual examinations of fitness and skill

The evaluation, control, and review of the qualifications, physical fitness, and other abilities required to carry out the operations of the police services must be done on a regular basis. Promotions should be contingent on a positive performance review.

IV. Critical analysis of police reforms in india

(A) Author’s comment

Most Indians have a negative opinion of law enforcement. There are valid reasons why they don't seem to care about their people. Picking up a newspaper will reveal horrifying stories of police brutality in jails and prisons. The public is aware of instances of systemic corruption, such as fatalities while in the custody of the police. The general public's negative opinion of the police may have been influenced by all of these factors and more, which may have led to an increase in crime rates.

The police are reluctant to report crimes to the authorities as a result. Because of this, crime has become so commonplace that we just accept it as a fact of life. We become anxious whenever the police phone or visit, even if it's only to ask a few straightforward questions. According to my thesis, the formation of law police organisations is to blame for the escalation of terror in society.

The British created the Indian police force to impose British rule over Indians during the colonial era. Through the police, our colonial overlords would enforce severe punishment on the citizenry. The notorious Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed civilians were murdered on General Reginald Dyer's orders, is one tragic illustration of police brutality under the British Raj.¹⁴

Past occurrences have shown the police's moral bankruptcy and heartless mindset. Unfortunately, it seems that the police department still operates with a colonial mentality. It is not unjustified to say that Indian police officers seem to lack the essential empathy and often face charges of abusing their authority.

Police reforms in India are desperately needed. Not only is it necessary now, but it has also been so for a while. The recommendations of several committees and commissions have never been carried out, despite reporting their findings. A number of illustrious committees have been formed to carry out police reforms. These include the Gore Committee on Police Training, National Police Commission, Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms, Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms, and Soli Sohrabjee Committee. Nearly all of the suggestions have been ignored.

With certain modernizations, the Indian police force is organised in accordance with the same outdated colonial statute—the Police Act of 1861—and is a part of the state list. In 1996, retired and well-known police officer Prakash Singh petitioned the Supreme Court to replace the current police statute with the model Police Act recommended by the National Police Commission. The petitioners provided justifications for why the current Act was insufficient and why changes were required.

The petition was brought about by the government's continual refusal to follow multiple advisory bodies' recommendations. The Supreme Court ordered the new standard to be used in all 50 states and all U.S. territories in a 2006 decision. Since then, the nation's top court has acknowledged the need for police reforms and sometimes checks to see whether state governments are adhering to the new set of guidelines.

The most crucial component of any legal system is, however, the trust of the average citizen. The institutions of justice are permitted to continue operating as long as this faith is maintained. In order to keep the objectives envisioned by the authors of our constitution from being compromised, the rule of law and equal protection under the law must be guaranteed for all people. Therefore, it is crucial that we recognise the significance of policing reforms as a way to increase the number of individuals who have access to the legal system.

(B) Police force reforms that will increase women's sense of security

According to statistics, police stations in India with designated women's assistance desks had higher rates of recording female crime victims. Additionally, there are more reports of crimes against women that call for criminal investigations at the support desks manned by female police officers. These findings, which came from the largest randomised controlled study of police reforms to date, were published this week in Science1.

Only a tiny percentage of reports of gender-based or intimate partner violence ever reach the police, despite the fact that one-third of women worldwide have experienced some kind of it. Due to their workload and the widespread belief that women are always to fault when domestic violence happens, only a small percentage of Indian women—4 out of 10—report intimate partner abuse to the police.

People are calling for changes to the way the police function as a result. By employing more women and creating stations that are specifically for female officers, countries like India and others are working to diversify their police forces. The objective is to combat patriarchal standards and enhance the legal system for women who make complaints. However, the outcomes have been erratic. In India, where there are all-female police stations, research2 demonstrates that the number of complaints does not increase because women who seek assistance at their local stations are sent to other stations with women's-only policies that are further away.

In 2017, the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh's police force made the decision to enhance its reaction to sexual assault and other types of gender-based violence. Madhya Pradesh has a long history of having a strong patriarchal society.¹⁵ It sought the counsel of economists from the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Abdul Lateef Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) to help remove the obstacles that impede women from reporting crimes and the police from keeping track of them. In the laboratory context, randomised controlled trials are often used to assess evaluations of social interventions.

Sandip Sukhtankar, an economist affiliated with J-PAL who works at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, established a randomised controlled experiment to examine the results of gender-based police reforms. 180 police stations that together serve 23.4 million people are included in the poll.

V. Conclusion

When new crimes occur in society, there is a need and desire for such change in the police administration to maintain cordial relations and public trust in the police. There has to be reforms made to the police system in order to combat criminals, reduce crime, and promote legitimate interests. Upgrades like this are necessary to keep up with modern civilization. The administration has not come up with any good or realistic solutions for the police reforms that have led to the present dilemma, despite the establishment of various committees and rulings from the Supreme Court.

In order to create an environment where police may faithfully carry out their duties and to incentivize police agencies to hold best practises, such reforms are necessary to decrease crime, criminals, and to protect the concept of a welfare state.¹⁶

*****

VI. Bibliography

Cases

1. D.K Basu V. The State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

2. Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, MANU/SCOR/23958/2020

3. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526

4. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.

5. State of Maharasthra v. Ravikant S. Patil, (1991) 2 SC

6. Sunil Gupta v. M P, (1990) 3 SCC 119

Statutes

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. The British Police Act, 1861

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

4. The Constitution of India, 1950

5. The Model Police Act, 2006

Online Resources

1. Drishti, A Cop Out, March 28, 2019.

2. India Today, NHRC stats show there were more fake encounters in Congress-ruled states than in Narendra Modi's Gujarat , July 4, 2013

3. Live Mint, Encounter killing of Hyderabad rape suspects splits public opinion, December 7, 2019

4. The Logical Indian, 11 Years After Famous SC Judgement On Police Reforms, Know What The Judgement Was & Where Do We Stand, April 14, 2017, 0)

Treatises

1. HENRY THOBY PRINCEP, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 593 (1973)

Reports

1. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, Eight Report of the National Police Commission, 61.3 (1981).

2. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, Fourth Report of the National Police Commission, 27 (1980).

Footnotes

1. Author is the secretary at WKBSM, NMIMS's KMPSOL, 2021.

2. “Sharma, A., 2004. Police in ancient India. The Indian Journal of Political Science, Pp.101-110. ↩

3. M.S. Begum, District Police Administration, Anmol Publication Pvt.ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p.2. ↩

4. Das, D.K. and Verma, A., 1998. The armed police in the British colonial tradition: the Indian perspective. Policing (Bradford), 21(2), p.354.” ↩

5. “Dhillon, K., 2011. The police and the criminal justice system in India. The Police, State, and Society: Perspectives from India and France, 27 ↩

6. Varghese, John, Police Structure: A Comparative Study of Policing Models (May 12, 2010).” ↩

7. “Prakash Singh &Orsvs Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996. ↩

8. D.K Basu V. The State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.” ↩

9. “Verma, J.S., Seth, L., Subramanian, G. and Justice JS Verma Committee, 2013.Report of the Committee on amendments to criminal law. P.321. ↩

10. Police Reforms: India – Police Structure and Organisation.” ↩

11. “Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. (2010). Seven Steps to Police Reform. CHRI. PP 5-12.” ↩

12. “H.H.B Gill v. The King AIR 1948 PC 128; Amrik Singh v. State of PEPSU AIR 1955 SC 309; Matajog Dubey v. H.C Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44; Balbir Singh v. D.N. Kadian AIR 1986 SC 345.” ↩

13. “Martensson, E. (2006). The Indian Police System a reform proposal. Loksatta Foundation of Democratic Reform, Hyderabad..” ↩

14. “Jain Suparna and Gupta Aparajita, Article “Building Smart Police in India: Background into the needed Police Force Reforms.” ↩

15. https://thewire.in/rights/custodial-death-uttar-pradesh ↩

16. Sunil Gupta v. M P, (1990) 3 SCC 119. ↩