BUILDING SMART POLICE IN INDIA: BACKGROUND INTO THE NEEDED

POLICE FORCE REFORMS

By:

Suparna Jain/Aparajita Gupta

1. Background:
The past decade has witnessed a steep rise in crime statistics in India. As per the data of the
National Crime Resource Bureau, cognizable crimes under the Indian Penal Code have shot
up from 18,78,293 from 29,49,400 a drastic increase if 63% and cognizable crimes under the
Special and Local Laws have gone up from 32,24,167 to 43,76,699 an increase of 73%. The
escalation of the crimes speaks for itself on the state of the criminal justice system in the
country. In order to understand the reason behind it, it is important to look into the two facets
of criminal justice: police and the judiciary: after all crime and criminals are nabbed by the
police and punishment/justice is delivered by the judiciary.

Much has been said and deliberated upon the judicial framework, its shortcomings on
delivery of justice and the needed reforms. The present paper refrains from review of this and
instead focuses on the other aspect of criminal justice system that is the Police Governance in
the country. The paper is divided into 10 sections. Section 2 defines police and traces the
organisation of police force within the country‟s governance framework-the Constitution and
the Law. Section 3 reflects upon the types of police forces and police statistics. Section 4
traces the history of police reforms in India both pre-independence and post-independence.
Section 5 discusses the judicial view on police reforms and Section 6 the implementation of
the court directives. Subsequently Section 7 outlines the much needed reforms in the police
force governance. Section 8 is on strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation while
Section 9 and 10 focus on police governance frameworks for urban and rural areas
specifically.

2. Locating Police: The Context

To begin with, a background into what is meant by police. As per the Black‟s Law
Dictionary, police is “the function of that branch of the administrative machinery of
government which is charged with the preservation of public order and tranquillity, the
promotion of the public health, safety, and morals, and the prevention, detection, and
punishment of crimes. Police is in general a system of precaution, either for the prevention of
crime or of calamities. Its business may be distributed into eight distinct branches: (1) Police
for the prevention of offenses ; (2) police for the prevention of calamities; (3) police for the
prevention of epidemic diseases; (4) police of charity; (5) police of interior communications;
(G) police of public amusements; (7) police for recent intelligence; (S) police
for registration."

Seen in the Indian context, „police‟, „public order‟, prisons, reformatories, borstal and other
allied institutions under the Constitution of India are state subjects. What this means is that
under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which divides the administrative powers
between the Central and State Government, Police is managed by the State Government. As a
result all states have their individual police laws. That is not to say that the Union
Government does not have any say in police governance, Article 355 of the Constitution
enjoins upon the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal
disturbance. It also imposes the duty upon the Union Government to ensure that that
government of every state is carried on in accordance with the Constitutional provisions.

Legally, The Police Act, 1861 is still the basic instrument governing the functioning of the
Indian Police. Besides the Indian Penal Code, 1862, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the
Criminal Procedure Copde of 1973 also govern the functioning of the police. Under the
Police Act, the Inspector General of Police (now designated as the Director General/Inspector
General) are the head of state police. States are divided into districts and a Superintendent of
Police heads the district police. A group of districts form a range, which is looked after by an
officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Some states have zones comprising
two or more ranges, under the charge of an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of
Police. Every district is divided into sub-divisions. A sub-division is under the charge of an
officer of the rank of ASP/ Dy.S.P. Every sub-division is further divided into a number of
police stations, depending on its area, population and volume of crime. Between the police
station and the subdivision, there are police circles in some states - each circle headed
generally by an Inspector of Police. The police station is the basic unit of police
administration in a district. A police station is divided into a number of beats, which are
assigned to constables for patrolling, surveillance, collection of intelligence etc.

3. Police Force in India and their Statistics

Looking at the police force in the country, India‟s police force is divided into two categories:
Civil Police and Armed Police. Civil Police is designated for maintaining law and order,
prevention and detection of crime and law enforcement. Armed Police, on the other hand, are
seen during natural disasters or riots/civil unrest. The former manages police stations,
conduct investigations, answer routine complaints, perform traffic duties, and patrol the
streets. The Armed Police, on the other hand are divided into two groups, the district armed
police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (Pradeshik). The district armed police are
organised along the lines of an army infantry battalion. They are assigned to police stations
and perform guard and escort duties. The Provincial Armed Constabulary is an armed reserve
maintained at key locations in some states and active only on orders from the deputy
inspector general and higher-level authorities. Armed constabulary are not usually in contact
with the public until they are assigned to VIP duty or assigned to maintain order during fairs,
festivals, athletic events, elections, and natural disasters. They may also be sent to quell
outbreaks of student or labour unrest, organised crime, and communal riots; to maintain key
guard posts; and to participate in antiterrorist operations. Broadly, the Central Armed Forces
are Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Central Reserve Polie Force,
Indo-Tibetan Border Police, National Sectiruty Guards and Special Police Group. In addition
to the above two categories, India also has central investigation and intelligence institutions.
These include the Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency amongst
others.

Having discussed the constitution of police force, we now turn to some statistics that shed
light on the functioning of the police in the country. First looking at the police force strength
in the country- as on 1.1.2015, as per the data supplied by Bureau of Police Research and
Development, the total sanctioned force is 22,63,222 (including both the Civil and Armed
Police Forces). Seen from the perspective of the number of citizens per policemen, this
sanctioned strength is 182.68 policemen per lakh population. This when appreciated in
context of the UN recommended police personnel per lakh population1 of 222, is 18% less
than the recommended figures. To make things worse, on ground, the policemen per lakh
citizens are merely 139 (17.2 million in all) which is a mammoth 37% less than the
recommended figures. According to BPR&D, the actual strength of the police force on

1
“National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of
Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p. 128.
January 1, 2015 was 17,21,131 (Civil Police 13,50,563 + Armed Police 3,70,568) against the
sanctioned strength of 22,63,222 (Civil Police 18,22,358 + Armed Police 4,40,864). The
vacancies (5,42,091) need to be filled up so that the police-population ratio improves and
comes closer to international standards.

Looking next at the annual spending on police forces in the country, out of the total police
expenditure of Rs. 74257.66 crores during 2014-15, a mere 1.46% amounting to Rs.1086.11
of the total police expenditure was spent on training. As a result of this training academies,
which play a critical role in the building of the police force lag behind in infrastructure and
facilities. Given the increasing crime rate the financial support for modernization of police
force should be increasing. Yet the finances provided by the Centre have been falling- the
Rs.2000 crores sanctioned till 2014 have fallen to mere Rs. 595 crores in 2016-17.

Unlike the working hours for civilians, staff members of police stations have to remain on
duty for 11 hours or more per day. 27.7% SHOs and 30.4% supervisory officers even
reported that their staff worked for more than 14 hours a day. As if this is not enough, 73.6%
of police station staff indicated that they were not able to avail weekly offs even once a
month. What makes the situation even worse is that most (over 80%) of the staff are
commonly recalled to duty during their off time, to deal with emergencies of law and order,
VIP duties or other works.”

Another set of shocking statistics reveal that something as basic as housing facility is not
available to all police personnel. For 17.21 lakh police personnel, only 5.80 lakh family
quarters are available as per data with BPR&D, as on January 1, 2015.

This limited force has even more limited material support. 342 police stations across the
country do not have a telephone;, 127 stations have no wireless facilities and 54 have neither
of the two To reach the crime scene, the police has a little more than seven vehicles for every
hundred policemen. Lack of forensic support has piled up pending exhibits to the tune of
6,54,859 waiting to be examined as on 1 January 2015.

The above statistics are just a peak into the dismal state of affairs. However one thing is
clear-immediate action on police reforms is an aspect of internal governance which needs
immediate and serious attention.
4. History of Police Reforms in India

This is not to say that this aspect has not been given attention. Both pre and post
independence, a number of committees and commissions have been appointed and have
deliberated upon various aspects of streamlining the effectiveness of police governance in the
country. It all commenced with the 1st Police Commission which was set up soon after the
1857 Mutiny to deliberate upon the regulatory framework for police in the country. Set up in
1860, the recommendations of this Commission resulted in the enactment of the Police Act of
1861-a law that still governs police.

A review of the issues arising from the implementation of the Police Act of 1861 was done in
1902, through the setting up of the 2nd Police Commission. The Commission came out with a
detailed report covering various aspects relating to the organization of police force, adequacy
of training, strength, pay, the sufficiency of procedure for reporting crime, investigating
offences, adequacy of supervision exercised by the Magistracy over the police, the control of
the superior officers over the investigation of crime, relation between railway police and
district police etc. What is interesting to note is that even way back then, it found the police
far from efficient, defective in training and organisation, and one which was generally
regarded as "corrupt and oppressive."

Post-independence with changing economic, political and social set up in the country, the
need to revisit the police governance was felt several times. Post-independence, the first
Police Reforms Committee was set up by Kerala in 1959. This was followed by a succession
of Police Commissions appointed by different State Governments mainly during sixties and
seventies (West Bengal in 1960-61, Punjab in 1961-62, Delhi in 1968, Tamil Nadu in 1971 to
name a few). At the Central Government level, a Working Group on Police by the
Administrative Reforms Commission was set up in 1966.

This was followed by the setting up of the Gore Committee on Police Training in 1971 and
subsequently the National Police Commission which, between 1977-1981, submitted 8
reports suggesting wide ranging reforms in the existing police set-up and also a Model Police
Act. None of the major recommendations by the National Police Commission were adopted
by any government. This persuaded two former Director General‟s of Police (DGPs) in 1996
to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (Prakash Singh Vs. Union of
India) asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. In the
course of the 10 year long case, in 1998 the Court set up the Ribeiro Committee to review
action taken to implement the recommendations of the.

While the matter was underway in the SC, in 2000, the Ministry of Home Affairs set up the
Padmanabhaiah Committee to examine the requirements of policing in the new millennium.
Subsequently, the Malimath Committee on reforms of Criminal Justice System in India was
set up in 2003.

5. Judicial Intervention-Landmark Judgement on Police Reforms

In 2006, the Hon‟ble SC gave a landmark judgement in the Prakash Singh case with seven
directions (six for the state government and one for the Union) for setting up of state Security
Commission to lay down broad policies and give directions for preventive tasks and service
and constituted the Soli Sorabjee Committee which suggested a Model Police Act. The Court
directed the setting up of three institutions, namely:

a) State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give
directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented
functions of the police;
b) Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four
other senior officers of the Department which shall decide transfers, postings,
promotions and other service related matters of departmental officers and men;
and
c) Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to
inquiring into allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the Court ordered that the Director General of Police shall be selected by the state
government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been
empaneled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC, and that he shall have a prescribed
minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the IG
Zone, DIG Range, SP i/c District and SHO i/c Police Station would also have a minimum
tenure of two years.
The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to
ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union Government was asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection
and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations, upgrading the effectiveness of these
forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

6. Implementation of SC Directions

The Court directed the Union and the States to implement its orders aforesaid orders by the
end of 2006. This deadline was subsequently extended till March 31, 2007. The Court opined
that its directions would be operational till a model Police Act is prepared by the Central
Government and / or the State Government pass the requisite legislations.

Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all States and Union Territories. However,
in 2008 it set up a three member Monitoring Committee with a two year mandate to examine
compliance state by state and report back to it periodically. The Supreme Court also
appointed the Justice Thomas Committee which submitted a report in 2010. It expressed
“dismay over the total indifference to the issue of reforms in the functioning of Police being
exhibited by the States”. Another committee constituted under Justice Verma to examine
Amendments to Criminal Law in the context of a gang rape incident in 2012 deplored the
lack of implementation of the Court‟s seven directions in the Prakash Singh case.

The status of Compliance of Supreme Court‟s directions (As on August 1, 2016) is attached
as Annexures. Annexure-I shows the states which have passed executive orders and
Annexure-II shows states which have passed Acts.

A review of the status of implementation of the SC directions reveals a dismal picture. In

what is considered to be bye-passing court the directions, seventeen states (Assam, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajashan, Sikkim, Tamilnadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand) passed
new laws legitimizing status quo while other states passed merely executive orders. Even
Central government has yet to pass the Delhi Police Bill. However, even these are not
reflected at the ground level.
In November 2014 the Hon‟ble PM unveiled his vision for SMART Police – police which
should be strict and sensitive, modern and mobile, alert and accountable, reliable and
responsible, techno-savvy and trained.

7. Reforms for SMART Police:

Broadly, reforms are needed on three fronts: first improvement in capacity and infrastructure
of police forces, second revisiting the constitution of police forces in the country through
legislative/ administrative changes, and third technological scaling-up. Within each of these
three heads, changes are required at several levels. The section below outlines these below.

a. Boosting capacity and infrastructure:

Boosting infrastructure and capacity of the police forces includes increase in the number of
police personnel in the country, improvement in recruitment, training and service conditions
including upgradation on one hand and improving the infrastructure, working hours, housing
facilities on the other.

Various studies on the police force in the country have revealed that while work pressure and
complexities in handling law and order and investigating crime have grown at an enormous
pace, manpower growth has not been commensurate2. Studies have also shown that often,
police personnel need to be deputed as attachments in other superior offices, further reducing
manpower for policing3. To tackle this problem, there is an urgent requirement to recruit
more people. Experts suggest that after 18 years of service, some CAPFs could switch to the
Armed Police of the state. This is one way of filling vacancies. Another reform is using
technology to supplement manpower4. There is a link between vacancies and lack of adequate
training facilities. The latter may be one reason preventing state police forces from quickly
filling up the posts. To address this, experts suggest that some trained Central Armed Police
Forces personnel can be deputed in states. As per the Second Administrative Commission,
training needs to be made an attractive option for the trainers. This can be done through
provision of better facilities and attractive allowances. This will attract motivated trainers.

2
“National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of
Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.13
3
“National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of
Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.13
4
“National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of
Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p.14.
Police, as part of their job profiles, need to constantly interact with the public. This requires
the police to be sensitive which can be achieved through attitudinal training. To help the
police officers upgrade their skills, refresher courses should be made compulsory and a pre-
requisite for promotion. A well trained force would efficiently discharge their duties.

Next, the quality of life of the police force needs special attention. Long working hours
reduce motivation to work and increase stress. Section 22 of the Police Act, 1861 states that
a police officer is “always on duty”. This creates the problem. Recently, policemen in
Karnataka took a mass leave calling for an hour shift. Calls for a shift system has been heard
from many quarters. Appreciating this concern, there is a need to stipulate humane working
hours for policemen. Some states have already done so. Kerala has introduced eight hour duty
system in its Police Act, becoming the first state. Haryana has also gone for the shift system.
Such a switch requires more people. It has been estimated that India would need 3,37,500
people if eight hour shift is introduced5. Taking an incremental approach, experts suggest a
12 hour shift can be introduced.

Another facet of a quality life is provision of accommodation. The National Police

Commission has recommended that all gazetted and non-gazetted officers need to be
provided with family accommodation. In addition, there is a need to provide them with
humane living conditions. The 5th Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission
has supported the need for undertaking major housing construction programmes for them.
This would help them give their best to national service.

Next, hard infrastructure needs a total overhaul. To support the policemen, transport and
communication facilities need to be expanded and upgraded. To augment forensic support,
there is a need to have forensic laboratories in each district or at best at Divisional/Range
levels. Experts have pointed to Gujarat as a model in this regard. Ahmedabad has the State
Forensic Science Laboratory. In addition, Ahmedabad Junagadh, Rajkot, Surat and Vadodara
have regional laboratories with one district laboratory in Valsad. Moreover, 47 mobile
laboratories cover the entire State. This is supplemented by the Gujarat Forensic Sciences
University and a Directorate of Forensic Science in Gandhinagar.

5
“National Requirement of Manpower for 8-Hour Shifts in Police Stations”, Study sponsored by Bureau of
Police Research & Development, Govt. of India, August 2014, p. 127.
These measures will ensure adequate and quality policing.

b. Legislative reforms: The legislative changes include, enactment of the organized Crimes
Act, a single police act for the country, moving Police to the Concurrent List, declaration of
Federal Crimes, measures regarding registration of crimes, statutory backing for the CBI,
Commissionerate system for large areas, revival and strengthening of the beat constable
system and some changes in criminal procedure and evidence systems.

With respect to Organized Crimes, India is a signatory to the UN Convention against

Transnational Organized Crimes. But as on date, India does not have a central legislation to
tackle such crimes. Only Maharashtra has the MCOCA Act which has been adopted by some
other states. In times of rising cases of money laundering; arms, drugs and human trafficking;
expanding terror networks, etc, there is an urgent need to have a Central law to regulate the
same.

It is needless to reiterate that safe and secure environment is a basic need to sustain economic
progress of the country. And the first step towards that direction is amending the colonial
police regime in the country. The British had enacted the Police Act, 1861 for the entire
country. Now, each state has come up with its own laws where basic features differ. Some of
these laws have even been challenged in court on grounds of unconstitutionality. This is an
anomalous situation. To have uniformity in basic features which are in tune with the present,
experts suggest that Article 252 can be relied on to have a single police law if two or more
states consent. Based on this, states can adopted their laws as per local situations. In this
respect, the Model Police Act was prepared in 2006 which has now been revised to a Model
Police Bill 2015.

Another area of concern is the growing threats to internal security, terrorism, Left Wing
Extremism due to which policing only by the state without Central support will be difficult.
Very often, instances like inter-state disputes, communal riots, clashes between different
castes and mela duties demand the services of the Central Armed Police Force. As mentioned
above, under the Constitutional framework, police and public order come within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government. The duty of the Union Government is to
provide armed and para-military forces when needed and to ensure that the executive power
of every state be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and
any existing laws which apply in that state. It is often argued that these challenges will be
resolved better if “police” and “public order” are shifted from the State List in the VIIth
Schedule of the Constitution to the Concurrent List. This can also be done by amending entry
3 in the Concurrent List formalising what is actually happening on the ground. The need for
inclusion of Public Order in Concurrent list stems from significance of public order for
national security, economic development and legitimacy of the state. Generally, the Union
Government is unable to intervene in cases of flouting of public order at a state level unless
the state seeks assistance. This, it is has been observed, often snowball into a national crisis
which then has to be addressed through the extreme emergency provisions. It is therefore
argued that by including “Public Order” in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, the Union
Government can play a more proactive role in curbing violation of public order at a nascent
stage. Another reason supporting the shift of public order to the Concurrent List is the rapid
increase in inter-state crimes. Tackling these in the present framework is slightly challenging
since all states have varied legal and administrative framework. In light of the rapid growth in
internet, communication and mobile technologies, organised crimes and terrorism can be best
tackled through a unified legal, administrative and operational framework for the police
forces across the nation. This can be accomplished only by empowering the Union
Government to also regulate public order.

But this would require a Constitutional Amendment which could be difficult. Instead, the
Centre can declare certain crimes as Federal Crimes. What this means is that certain offence
which have inter-state or national ramifications should be governed by a new law. As per the
report of the Second Administrative Reforms Committee, the State Police as well as the CBI
could be given the concurrent jurisdiction over investigation of all such crimes. Their
investigation can then be given to a central agency like the NIA or CBI. These crimes could
be:

i. Organized Crime
ii. Terrorism
iii. Acts threatening National Security
iv. Trafficking in arms and human beings
v. Sedition
vi. Major crimes with inter-state ramifications
vii. Assassination of (including attempts on) major public figures
viii. Serious economic offences
With regard to registration of crimes, there are some concerns. There have been instances
where crime figures are kept low in order to portray a crime free image. This is done through
concealment of crime. There have also been instances of false and highly exaggerated
complaints. Another issue is corruption in registration and non-registration of FIRs. To tide
over these issues, experts suggest the introduction of a dual system. While all the complaints
will be registered, FIRs will only be registered when the police find a crime has been
committed after a preliminary verification. This can be done through an amendment to
Section 157 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which would then read as follows:
"If from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station, after such
preliminary verification as he deems necessary, has reason to suspect the commission of an
offence……” Recently, the Supreme Court has directed the police to upload FIRs within 48
hours to bring in more transparency to the system. Though it provides for exceptions to
protect sensitive cases and extension in light of practical difficulties, the move if
implemented well will bring people closer to the system.

c. Administrative Reforms:
In addition to the legislative changes, there is an urgent need for administrative reforms as
well. On the administrative side, changes include separation of investigation from law and
order, specialized wings for Social and Cyber Crimes, restricting the police to core functions,
setting up authorities as directed by the Supreme Court, strengthening state machinery and
linking prosecution with police.

As suggested by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, “the investigating
police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better
expertise and improved rapport with the people.” It also mentioned that there should be “full
coordination” between the two. As per the 6th report of the National Police Commission, such
a separation should be restricted to the police station level under the Station House Officer
(SHO). Officers above the SHO would be responsible for both investigation and law and
order. Implementing this suggestion would need more human resources but is worth
pursuing.

For efficient policing, there is a need for the police force to restrict themselves to core
functions. A suggested reform is that Excise, Forest, Transport and Food departments need to
have their own enforcement wings to relive the State Police from their routine functions. 5 th
Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission further suggests that functions
like serving court‟s summons, antecedents and addresses verification for passport
applications or job verifications etc. can be outsourced to private agents or government
departments. These measures will help in reducing the workload of the police.

Moreover, specialized crimes require a specialized approach and personnel to deal with them.
Social crimes like offences related to beggary, prostitution, crimes against women, domestic
violence, dowry offences, etc cannot be handled by the traditional daroga. Experts suggest
that it needs to be handled by a separate wing with people like students who have graduated
in Social Science/Social Work. Another upcoming category of crimes is cyber crimes. In
light of its highly complex nature, experts feel that one can recruit students who have done
MCA or passed out from an IIT as sub-inspectors/inspectors under the State CID. To prevent
detection, they should work in plain clothes. The Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh v.
Union of India outlined some other administrative reforms to reform the police system. As
already pointed out, very few states have taken steps to comply with the judgment. In the
present times of cooperative federalism, the Centre needs to sit with the states to motivate
them to follow the following SC directions:

i. Setting up of State Security Commission laying down broad policies and

directions for police functioning
ii. Police Establishment Board to decide on transfers, postings, promotions, and
other service related issues
iii. Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels as redressal
mechanisms for complaints against police
iv. Selection of DGP by the state government from panel of three senior-most
officers of the Department who have been empaneled by the UPSC for
promotion,
v. Fixed tenure of officers on operational duties

At the central level, the SC had directed that a National Security Commission should be
established for the selection and placement of heads of Central Police Organizations,
upgrading these forces and improving service conditions.
Rising terror attacks have brought out weaknesses in state response. There is an urgent need
to enhance state police capabilities so that they can counter terrorism on their own in
emergency. Experts suggest the following measures:

i. Like the National Security Guard (NSG) at the Centre, states should set up
their own State Security Guard (SSG). Based on the size of the state and
gravity of the threat, SSG can range between 100 to 300.
ii. To tackle international terrorism, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act needs
to be strengthened.
iii. A National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) needs to be established.

Presently, prosecution and police are separated at the State level and the same is favoured at
the Centre. Integration and coordination of the two is in the best interest of the criminal
justice system. This has been recommended by the National Police Commission and the
Malimath Committee. Such an approach is not new and is followed in the US and the UK. It
is suggested that at the state level, the Director of Prosecution should be placed under
administrative control of the Director General of Police.

d. Technological Scaling:
Technological reforms includes modernization of the control room, fast tracking the Crime
and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) pushing for National Intelligence
Grid (NATGRID) and pushing for incorporation of new technology into policing.

The police force needs to keep pace with changing times. Modernization of the force has
become inevitable especially in cyber security, counter-terrorism/insurgency and relying on
technology for policing. This calls for more investment especially for modernization and
technological upgradation. Further, control rooms need to be upgraded. There is a need to
have a unique and integrated emergency number as is present in other parts of the world. To
do this, the National Emergency Response System (NERS) of the Ministry of Home Affairs
needs to be operationalized. Like Madhya Pradesh which has built DIAL 100 Call Centres for
swift response to emergency calls, other states should also adopt a similar system.

To enable police stations to exchange information, they need to be connected through a

seamless network. Realizing this need, an ambitious project in the form of Crime and
Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) was sanctioned in 2009. Its main aim was
to connect 15,000 police stations and 5000 supervisory police officers. Though the system
was to be in place by 2012, the deadline has been extended to 2017. Once it is in place, data
exchange would be easier.

Departmentalized investigations sometimes miss the holistic picture. To counter terrorism, a

holistic analysis of different facets of the information is necessary. Keeping this is in mind,
there is a need to push for the NATGRID or National Intelligence Grid. It involves
combining 21 sensitive databases into a single one which can be accessed by authorized
Central officers from the IB, RAW, CBI, DRI, and ED. Databases included in the grid are
banks, credit cards, cellphone usage, immigration records, motor vehicle registration, income
tax records. Such a grid will help investigators in understanding the complete profile of a
suspect. Recently, there were news reports about Delhi Police tying up with ISRO, the Indian
Space agency, for mapping crimes and predictive policing. The „Crime Mapping Analytics
and Predictive System‟ uses space technology to tackle internal security threats. Police
officials would be equipped with Personal Digital Assistant Devices with stored crime related
data for easy access. The system also has provision for converting distress calls into digital
messages giving the location using GPS. If such path breaking technology is utilized by
Indian police, policing will become effective. Thus, technology needs to be used in
modernizing the police force to be able to meet current and future challenges.

The reforms outlined above will pave the way for a robust police system apt to deal with the
ever-changing nature of challenges. But the reforms need to be undertaken on a sustained
basis to keep the police relevant to the changing needs of the society. An easy starting point
for states is to look at the Model Police Bill, 2015 and incorporate similar provisions, adapted
to their local conditions, into their state police laws.

8. Strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation:

In addition to the above discussed reforms, one critical area where reform is needed is the
Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). The CBI traces its origin to WWII. It was established
in 1941 as the Special Police Establishment, tasked with domestic security. However, it was
renamed as the Central Bureau of Administration on the basis of the recommendations of the
Sanathanam Committee in 1963. It is interesting to note that the Central Bureau of
Investigation at the Centre derives its power from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 and has been created through an executive resolution. Over the years much deliberation
has been done on shortcomings of the CBI and the reforms needed. In 1978, a LP Singh
Committee was set up which recommended the “enactment of a comprehensive Central
Legislation to remove the deficiency of not having a central investigative agency with a self-
sufficient statutory charter of duties and functions”. The 19th Report of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee in 2007 and the 24th Report of the Parliamentary Committee in 2008
have emphasized on the same. In 2011, a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha to look into
the Lokpal Bill also made suggested drastic reforms to the CBI in order to ensure its
independence These relate to autonomy, appointment and control over the CBI.

The matter pertaining to autonomy of CBI once again came before the Supreme Court in the
Coal Block Allocation matter in 2013. The Court rapped the government for having failed to
ensure functional autonomy to the Central Bureau of Investigation and asked the government
to “come out with a law to insulate the agency from external influence and intrusion”.
Accordingly the then Prime Minister constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to consider the
matter relating to an appropriate law being made to provide for the independence of the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its functional autonomy. The GoM recommended
that a panel of retired judges would monitor the CBI investigations to prevent external
interference. In addition, it also recommended an increase in the financial powers of the CBI
Director, and a new mechanism for the appointment of the Director (Prosecution) which is a
Law Ministry appointee at present. However, these reforms were heavily criticised on
grounds of being merely on-surface changes.

Broadly, the areas where reforms are sought in relation to CBI are as under. Foremost is
revisiting the functioning of CBI as a Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act of 1946. This has been discussed in detail by the Padmanabhaiyah
Committee in its report. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission report has also
expressed concern about the power of CBI to investigate criminal cases only with the consent
of State Governments. The Commission has opined that a law should be enacted using the
powers of the Union Government under the Constitution to define the constitution of the CBI,
its structure and jurisdiction.

Another issue relating to functioning of the CBI, like all police force, is vacancy in the
sanctioned strength. As per PIB, vacancy positions in CBI as on 18.4.2012 was as under:-

Cadre Sanctioned Strength Available Strength Vacancy

Executive 4510 3901 609
 Legal 318 258 60
Technical 155 115 40
Ministerial 1,538 1,436 102
Canteen posts 70 43 27
TOTAL 6,591 5,753 838

In addition to the above the key, perhaps one of the key areas where reforms are needed in
the functioning of the CBI is its autonomy. CBI‟s lack of autonomy can be traced to its rules
for appointment of its Director and limitations on its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has
recently referred to the CBI as a “caged parrot speaking in a master‟s voice”. The autonomy
to function free from the control of the executive is the need of the hour. In this one
suggestion has been to make the CBI accountable to the Lokpal.

9. Establishing a Police Commissionerate Setup in Urban Areas:

Urban areas in India have been witnessing rapid growth. As a result challenges for the police
in cities have also become immense. In this situation, as recommended by the National Police
Commission in the 6th report, a system of Police Commissionerate should be introduced in
cities with population of five lakhs and above and places where special conditions like speedy
urbanisation, industrialisation, etc. demand it. Here a little background on the rationale for the
Commissionerate system would help. Initially, the Commissionerate system was introduced
in some metropolitan areas like Calcutta, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Madras. But over the
years, it has extended to fast growing cities like Delhi, Gurgaon, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack,
Pune, Nagpur, Vishakhapatnam, Ahmedabad, Mysore, Kochi, Trichy to name a few. As
compared to police in districts, Police in commissionerates in small areas had given better
accounts of themselves as per the 6th Report of the National Police Commission. It noted that
changing dynamism and growing complexities of security threats required a swift and prompt
response leaving very little time for discussion and debate. It found that having a direct and
not a mere supervisory role of a senior police officer in the daily functioning of the police
was a great advantage. The Commissioner needs to be a senior, mature police officer with
adequate expertise having full authority over the force and functional autonomy. Though
resisted, this can be started in urban areas with population of 10 lakhs and above,
metropolitan areas and any other notified area as mentioned in the Model Police Bill, 2015.
In the present context, with the Central Government keen on pushing the Smart Cities
Mission, a professional and autonomous yet accountable police force is needed. Further, it
would be helpful to take inputs related to safety, security and policing needs from the
Commissioner of Police while planning any major developmental activity in an urban or
metropolitan area as suggested by the Model Police Bill, 2015.

In order to introduce this system, the State or UT Police Act can be amended empowering the
state governments or Central Government in a UT to create a Police Commissionerate and
empower police officers to exercise powers of the District Magistrate and Executive
Magistrate. This can be done on the lines of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the Orissa Urban
Police Act, 2003.

10. Developing Beat Constabulary in Rural Areas:

Another neglected area is the beat constable system. At the All India Director General of
Police Conference at Dhordo, Rann of Kutch in 2015, the Prime Minister said that “Police
forces should establish strong links with local community and connect with people.” Further,
he mentioned about reviving the beat constable system for information collection. In 2009, at
the Conference of Chief Ministers on Internal Security, the then Home Minister mentioned
“reactivating the beat constable system” as one of the important concerns.

These statements need to be understood in light of the rising internal security challenges as
well as terrorist attacks. While there is an active police force as well as specialized agencies
to deal with these threats, many feel that there is absence of grass root intelligence. It is here
that the Beat Constable system becomes relevant. Under this system, the beat constables have
a close association with the community making it easy to get information and also observe
any suspicious activities or behaviour. In the past, a close link between the police and the
community in this system, helped in prevention and investigation6. Even the Second
Administrative Commission in its 5th Report recommended that the beat constable system be
restored. Highlighting its advantages, it noted that the system apart from being an important
source of information, gave citizens a sense of security.

At present specialized forces like the Anti-Terrorism Squads and rapid action forces have
diluted the role of police stations, Station House Officers and even the beat constable7. In
present times, where even a small piece of information can help avert a major security attack,

6
FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.78.
7
FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.78.
it is important to fall back on the beat constable system. Beat patrolling on foot and mobile
patrol, equipped with modern equipment is the need of the hour8. To be able to make contacts
in the community, the beat constables need to be kept on the same beat for 2 years 9. This will
create a powerful first line of intelligence.

The beat constable system can be revived through the legislative route. For example, in the
Kerala Police Act, 2011, Section 65 clearly outlines the duties and responsibilities of the beat
patrols. These include keeping contact with the Community Contact Committee (comprising
of local representatives) and active participants in the community life; reviewing steps to
prevent offences in the beat area; information collection with respect to criminals, terrorists
and anti-social elements in the area and communicating it to the relevant officer; observing
various people like criminals under special observation in the beat area, people with criminal
background and those with a bad character; having an understanding of local disputes which
can involve violence in future and giving its details to the relevant officer; mentioning the
grievances and complaints of the general public in respect of police, in writing, to the
relevant officer and keeping a record of work done during the visit which needs to be
submitted to the relevant officer.

In Kerala itself, an earlier project, namely the Janamaithri Suraksha Project had paved the
way for „Community Police‟ system. Launched in 2008, this project involved policing with
the community, understanding the latter‟s needs, special problems and prioritizing
community security10. At the centre of this project is the beat officer who is accessible to the
public, understands their needs and interacts with the community closely11. House visits by
these beat officers are common. This helps them to build link with the community members.

To involve the community to give inputs for policing, Community Contact Committee like in
the Kerala Police Act, 2011 or Community Liaison Groups under the Model Police Bill, 2015
can be created. These committees or groups consist of local residents to advise the police in
respect of their needs. In rural areas, a Village Defence Party can be formed on similar lines
as suggested in the Model Police Bill, 2015. Following this model, legislative change backed
with such schemes and projects can be introduced in other states.

8
FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p.79.
9
FICCI Taskforce Report on National Security and Terrorism, Vol. 1, p. 80.
10
http://keralapolice.org/newsite/janamaithri.html.
11
http://keralapolice.org/newsite/janamaithri_social.html#jana2
To Sum Up

The needs for a fast growing economy like India for safe environment particularly in light of
the complex security threats in present times are imminent. Terrorism, Left Wing Extremism,
crimes including cyber-crimes, law and order issues threats which call for a strong and
efficient police for internal security. A review of the police governance framework, the legal
setup, the issues ailing the police force –all call from making police reforms one of the
greatest priority for the country.

The report has been made taking in inputs from experts including Mr. Prakash Singh.

Disclaimer: Views are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of NITI Aayog
 Annexure - 1
Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on August 1, 2016)
(In States which have issued Executive Orders)

Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
State Government State government
1 Andhra State Government Yes, G.O. issued on Board constituted Government
issued order on State government have issued order on
Pradesh claims to have 07.02.07. vide G.O. dated had drafted a
8.8.2013 issued order dated 8.8.2013 8.8.2013
implemented first 07.02.07. Police Act
reconstituting SSC However, some civil on the subject. constituting
component of Amendment
with following society Comments Complaints
direction regarding Bill in 2008,
members: representatives who Authority at State
selection of DGP. 1) Not authorized to but that was
HM, Leader of met Thomas and District levels.
make never tabled.
Opposition, Chief Comments Committee at Its
recommendations With the
Secy., DGP and 5 Hyderabad on recommendations
1. Has asked GOI to regarding postings bifurcation of
independent members 17.7.09 alleged that will be binding.
issue clarifications / / transfers of the State,
(Sorabjee Model). transfer orders were
amendments to AIS gazetted police compliance of
Recommendations of being issued
(DCRB) Rules 1958. officers. the directives
SSC would be frequently in gross
will have to be
binding. 2. Has filed violation of the G.O. 2) Not to function as reviewed.
interlocutory forum of appeal on
Comments
application, seeking representations Post-
1. Procedure for non-involvement of from officers bifurcation,
selection of UPSC in selection regarding their Andhra Pradesh
“independent process. promotion/transfer passed the
members” not etc. or their being Police
clarified . Post-bifurcation, AP (Reforms) Act
subjected to illegal
has passed Police
orders. 2014 which
2. SSC will meet at (Reforms) Act which
legislates only
least once in six legislates only on the 3) Not to review the
on the
months. It should appointment of DGP. functioning of
appointment of
meet more Complies with SC police. DGP.
frequently, at least directive except the
once a month. additional sub-section
of “on other
administrative
grounds to be
recorded in writing”
for the removal of
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
DGP. This could be
used arbitrarily.

2 Arunachal Constituted vide Notification dated Notification dated Notification dated 27.02.07 Constitution provided Constitution of a Arunanchal
Pradesh Notification dated 18.12.06 issued, but 18.12.06 issued. issued deciding such for, vide Notification State-level Pradesh Police
27.02.07, choosing in view of the However, since the separation in nine densely dated 14.12.06. Authority provided Act was
the model laid down concurrent posting of IPS populated urban police for, vide drafted, but yet
in the Model Police administrative officers in Arunachal stations. Notification dated to be passed by
Act. arrangement under Pradesh is controlled 27.02.07. legislature.
which the DGP for by MHA, the order of
Comments Comments
Arunachal Pradesh is the Government of
1) Instead of selected by MHA and Arunachal Pradesh 1) Complaint
two official members not by the State will be infructuous in Authorities at the
(Chief Secretary and Government, the so far as the postings district-level not
DGP), the State Govt. notification becomes of IPS officers are provided for.
added two more infructuous. concerned.
(Home
Commissioner and
the IGP) in the
Commission.
2) No judicial
person included in
the Commission, as
envisaged in the
„Model Police Act‟ of
Soli Sorabjee
Committee.
Officers posted in
3 Goa Constituted vide an No order issued. The No town with 10 lakh or Constituted vide Goa has only two Goa Police Bill
Goa are part of
Order dated 03.04.07 State Government‟s more of population Order dated 15.02.07. districts. As such 2008
AGMU (Arunachal,
adopting the NHRC stand is that: there is only a State introduced in
Goa, Mizoram and Seven police station have Comments
model. level Police state
1) Selection of UT) cadre. MHA is nevertheless been identified
1) The Order Complaints legislature.
Comments DGP is done by the cadre controlling for separation with respect
does not specifically Authority. It is Select
1. Lokayukta or, in
MHA, and the State authority. to ten types of heinous
state that the State headed by a senior Committee
has no control over crimes
his absence, one more Government would Retired Judge of constituted to
the selection as also
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
retired High Court over the tenure of the interfere with the Mumbai High examine the
Tenure of officers is
Judge is not included officer. decisions of the Court Bill. The Bill
two years “unless
in the composition, as Board only in however lapsed
2) MHA will circumstances
prescribed by NHRC. exceptional cases and in 2012. State
be requested to otherwise warrant”.
after recording its Government is
2. Not clarified that ensure two years‟
Comments reasons for doing so. reportedly
recommendations of tenure “unless the
drafting a
Board will be binding State itself has a State Govt. wants to 2) It also does
revised Police
strong reservation” have the prerogative not specify that the
In its latest affidavit Bill.
about continuance of to transfer officers recommendations of
(July 2013) State
a particular under certain the Board regarding
Govt. has taken the
incumbent. circumstances, which the postings and
stand that this
have not been transfers of officers
direction “affects the Comments
specified of and above the rank
Constitutional
State Govt. wants to of SP shall be given
distribution of
have the prerogative due weightage by the
powers”. The
to express its State Government
affidavit nevertheless
reservations about a and normally
goes on to say that in
particular incumbent accepted.
matters of
investigation police
should be “fully
insulated from any
political
interference”.

4 Jammu & Not complied, No orders issued. Not complied. State Government has Created, vide order Not complied. Jammu and
Kashmir moved application before dated 6.02.07. Kashmir Police
State Govt. has State Govt. has
the Supreme Court for Bill 2013
moved application Comments moved application
suspending the drafted and
before the Supreme before the Supreme
implementation of the But the order is made available
Court for suspending Court for
direction. silent about: for public
the implementation suspending the
feedback.
of the direction. 1) Role of the Board implementation of
There has been
in respect of the direction.
However, according to no further
postings / transfers
latest affidavit, separate Comments development.
of officers above
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
crime detection cells have the rank of DySP. May be favorably
been established in all considered.
2) Circumstances
police stations within
under which State
municipal limits of Srinagar
Govt. may interfere
& Jammu only.
with decisions of
the Board.
3) Role of the Board
in reviewing the
functioning of the
State Police.
On 3.9.12, Govt. set
up Senior Personnel
Board and Junior
Personnel Board to
lay down transfer
/posting policy.

5 Jharkhand Created, vide No order issued. Order issued, vide Vide a Resolution dated Police Establishment Constituted, both at Police Bill
notification dated Guidelines from notification dated 31.12.06, separate cadres Board constituted State and District- being drafted.
31.12.06. UPSC awaited 27.02.07 providing for investigation and law vide notification levels, vide
for minimum tenure and order wing constituted dated 19.02.07, Resolution dated
Comments
of two years for for the urban areas of reconstituted vide 03.04.07.
1) There is no judicial police officers on Ranchi, Jamshedpur, notification dated
Comments
element in the operational duties in Bokaro and Dhanbad. 9.10.2009.
composition of the the field. 1) However, the
Comments Comments
Commission. resolution does not
1) Order does not specify 1) Order is silent on make the
1) The order does
any details of how the the Supreme Court recommendations
not mention
separation would be direction that the of the Complaints
anywhere that the
effected. State Government Authorities binding
recommendations
may interfere with the on the concerned
of the
decisions of the authority.
Commission shall
Board only in
be binding.
exceptional cases,
2) No mention also and after duly
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
that the recording the reasons.
Commission‟s 2) Also, the Board is
report on not authorized to act
evaluation of as a forum of appeal
police against police officers
performance will being subjected to
be placed before illegal or irregular
the State orders.
legislature.

6 Madhya State Security Orders issued on Orders issued on State Govt. has, vide its Created vide orders State Govt. have,
Pradesh Council constituted 14.02.07. 14.02.07. order dated 27.08.2012, dated 14.2.07. vide their order
vide Home Dept Comments approved appointment of dated 30.08.2010,
Comments Comments
order dated 400 additional police constituted
1) No role of the
13.12.2011, as per (1) Officers can officers in four 1) The Board is Complaint Board at
UPSC in the
Sorabjee model. be prematurely metropolitan areas / to deal with transfers / district level.
selection process.
removed for “failure districts of Bhopal, Indore, postings of officers
Comments 2) An additional Comments
in controlling a grave Gwalior and Jabalpur. upto the rank of
1) It is an advisory clause of „failure to law and order Inspector only, not 1) District level
provide leadership Comments
body, whose situation”. DySPs. Board is headed by
recommendations in a grave situation 1) Additional staff will be Minister i/c District
of general law and (2) They can 2) The Board is
will not be binding on used both for investigation instead of retired
order‟ has been also be removed on not authorized to
State Govt. and law & order. District and
added for the “becoming otherwise finally decide on
Sessions Judge.
2) No provision for premature removal incapable of 2) Separate staff for transfer / postings on
report of Council of DGP. discharging official investigation not provided its own. The order 2) Other members
being placed before responsibilities”, for. mandates that all the of the Board also
State Legislature. 3) No procedure is instead of “becoming decisions of the Board not as per Supreme
prescribed for such incapacitated” as per should be forwarded to Court direction.
removal to ensure Supreme Court‟s the State Govt. “before
objectivity and direction. implementation”.
credibility of 3)Recommendat-
action. (3) No 3) Recommendat
ions of Board will
procedure is ions of the Board on
be referred to
prescribed for such transfer / postings of
authorized
premature removals. SPs and above are to be
commissions /
given only “reasonable
police, will not be
weightage” by the State
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
Government, not to be binding.
“normally accepted”.
4) No State level
4) Representatio Board constituted.
ns from police officers
against transfer /
postings etc. and
against being subjected
to any illegal or
irregular orders, are to
be merely forwarded
by the Board to the
State Government for
decision.

7 Manipur Constituted vide Order dated 28.12.06 Order dated 28.12.06 Not applicable as no town or Constituted vide Constituted vide Manipur Police
Order dated 31.03.07. issued. issued urban area has a population Order dated 28.12.06. Order dated Bill, 2007
of 10 lakhs or more. 31.03.07. drafted.
Comments Minimum tenure Comments
However, it has
notified, except in Comments
Composition does not 1) The Board is yet to be
cases of
include a judicial authorized to decide 1) The independent approved by
superannuation.
element. only transfers / members of the the State
postings of DySPs, State-level Government.
and below. For other Authority are all
service matters, it retired bureaucrats.
will only make
2) Independent
recommendations.
members for the
2) For SPs and above, District-level
the Board will make Authorities do not
recommendations, seem to have been
but the order does not nominated.
specify that the
3) The
Government will give
recommendations
due weight to those
of the Complaints
recommendations and
Authorities are not
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
shall normally accept binding on the
them. authorities
concerned.
3) The Board is not
authorized to function
as a forum of appeal
for disposing of
representations on
police officers being
subjected to illegal or
irregular orders, or to
generally review the
functioning of the
State Police.

8 Nagaland Constituted vide Notification dated Notification dated Notification dated 30.03.07 State has a committee State level
Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. 30.03.07 issued. issued. headed by Chief Authority
30.03.07. Secretary and constituted, vide
comprising DGP, Notification dated
Comments
Comments Commissioner and 30.03.07
It has no role in Home Secretary for
It specifies that the Comments
evaluation of the purpose, under an
separation is to be effected
performance of the old order of 1998. 1) Notification is
within the available
State Police and silent on making
budgetary and manpower Comments
preparing a report recommendations
resources, which appears
thereon for being 1) Arrangement is not of the Authority
non-committal.
placed before the in keeping with binding on the
State legislature. Court‟s directives. administrative
authorities
2) State constituted
concerned.
an Establishment
Board vide Order 2) District level
dated 17.01.07, Authorities not
which has been constituted.
vested with powers of
postings and transfers
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
only in respect of
SIs/ASIs.
3) PEB constituted
vide order of
23.06.08 to cover the
ranks of SP and
above does not
conform to the SC
direction in that it is
not an entirely
departmental body.
4) The Boards are
only recommendatory
bodies.
5) The Boards are
also not authorized to
generally review the
functioning of the
State Police.

9 Odisha Not constituted. Notification issued on Notification issued on Notification issued on Created vide Vide notification Odisha Police
06.04.07. 06.04.07 providing 06.04.07, separating notification dated dated 06.04.07, the Bill has been
for tenure of two investigation from law and 06.04.07, State-level drafted but is
Comments
years for police order in two major cities - Authority is vested yet to be
Comments
1) Zone of officers on Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. in the Lokpal who passed.
consideration for operational duties. 1) Not authorized to will deal with the
Comments
selection not make complaints under
Comments
specified. 1) Mechanics of recommendations to the Orissa Lokpal
1) An officer can be implementation of the State Govt. with and Lokayuktas
1) No role for
removed prematurely separation are not specified regard to the postings Act, 1995.
UPSC in
if he is found in the notification. and transfers of
empanelment of Comments
“otherwise incapable officers of and above
officers
of discharging his the rank of SP. 1) Arrangement is
2) Minimum responsibilities”. a deviation from
2) Also, not
tenure of two years Court‟s directions.
2) He may also be authorized to act as a
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
for DGP will be: “as changed upon his forum of appeal for 2) No independent
far as possible” and request for being disposing of members included
subject to relieved of the post representations from in the composition.
superannuation. for personal reasons. officers regarding
3)
their being subjected
3) DGP can be Recommendations
to illegal orders, as
relieved of his of the Authority
mandated in the SC‟s
responsibility, among will be dealt with
direction.
other contingencies, in accordance with
upon his being found 3) The Board to the procedure laid
“incapable of review the work of down under the
discharging his the police officials in Orissa Lokpal and
duties”. This is liable the State (not Lokayuktas Act,
to be misused. functioning of the 1995.
police as such)
4) He may also 4) District-level
be changed due to his Authorities not
promotion, constituted.
retirement, including
voluntary retirement
or upon request for
being relieved of the
post for personal
reasons.

Constituted, vide GO OM dated Dec.2, Tenure of two years There are already
10 Uttar No G.O. or O.M issued. Letter dated
dated 2.12.10, and 2010 deals with given to field several forums like
Pradesh Instead, the State 12.03.2008 of
17.02.2011. selection/tenure of officers. Government State Human
Government issued a letter Principal Secretary,
Again reconstituted DGP, however says that it Rights
dated 07.09.2007 to the DGP Home, addressed to
on 26.7.13, accepting has to transfer Commission, SC /
stating that in the initial DGP, provides for the
Ribeiro model. Comments officers in ST Commission,
phase, the separation of constitution of four
Commission has, in “contingent Minorities
crime investigation from law different Police
addition to prescribed 1) DGP will be circumstances and Commission,
and order shall be Establishment
members, one selected by a exigencies of ground Women‟s
implemented to Inspector- Boards, one each to
Cabinet Minister, Committee situation” Commission,
level police stations, and deal with the State-
Principal Secretary comprising Chief Backward
directing him to identify 4, 2 level transfers of (i)
(Home), and Secy., Principal Commission, Lok
and 1 sub-inspector ASPs, (ii) DySPs,
Principal Secretary Secy.(Home) and Ayukta at state
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
(Law) also. Principal Secy. to Comments respectively for each of A, B (iii) Inspectors, and level.
CM. and C category police (iv) SIs and below.
1. Officers may be PCA not
Comments stations, for investigation
removed “in public Comments constituted on the
1) Commission not 2) UPSC not work. It, however, adds that
interest under special ground that it will
given authority to lay involved in no additional post shall be
circumstances”. 1)The contents of this
result in
down broad policies, preparation of panel. created for this purpose, letter indicate that the
will only lay down 2. Tenure rule is which means that separation “multiplicity of
Boards would deal
“guiding principles” being violated rather would be on paper only. forum creating
3) Tenure will be “as only with transfers
confusion in the
too frequently in
far as possible” two Comments and not with other
minds of public”.
2) Will give only actual practice. service-related
years including
“suggestions” and not 1. Govt. has passed on the matters envisaged in
superannuation. This
directions for buck to DGP; he cannot
is contrary to Court‟s the Supreme Court
preventive tasks and ensure separation unless directive. The Boards
service-oriented direction. Home Dept. sanctions are also not
functions. 4) DGP may be augmentation of staff. authorized to function
removed “in the 2. Govt. says there is lack of as a forum of appeal
3) Independent public interest” for police officers
members are ex- manpower and
which could be infrastructure. being subjected to
officio and. therefore, subjectively illegal or irregular
cannot be considered interpreted. orders, or to generally
independent. review the
functioning of the
4) Commission will State police. There is
not “function no mention also that
independent of Govt. the State Government
control”, as was 1)

may interfere with

directed by Supreme the decisions of the
Court. Board only in
exceptional cases and
5) No indication that after recording its
recommendations of reasons for doing so.
Commission will be
binding 2) Vide another letter
No.550/6-P-10-
27(45)/06 dated
6) Commission has
yet to hold a meeting. 08.04.2010 of
Principal Secretary,
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
It is on paper only. Home addressed to
DGP, Police
Establishment Boards
were ordered to be
constituted also for
intra-Range and intra-
District transfers of
officers of and below
the rank of Inspector.
The jurisdiction of
the Board, however,
excludes the posting /
transfers of officers
posted / to be posted
as officers incharge
of Police Stations, for
which concurrence of
District Magistrate is
prescribed.
3) The functions of
these Range and
District-level Boards
too are limited to
transfers only and do
not cover the other
components of the
Supreme Court
directive.
4) GO dated 26.12.10
constitutes a State
level Estt Board to
recommend
transfer/posting of
officers of and above
rank of Addl SP.
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
However, there is no
indication that Govt
will give “due
weight” to these and
“normally accept”
them, as was
mandated by the
Court.

11 West A Government The Government of The West Bengal Commissioner of Police, The Government of The Government of West Bengal
Bengal Notification issued in West Bengal, Home Government, Home Kolkata, vide his order West Bengal, Home West Bengal, vide Police Bill was
2010 notifying the Department, issued a Department issued a No.46 dated 15.02.2008, Department, vide its Notification drafted in 2007
constitution of the letter (No.381 PS letter (No.382-PS formed separate their letter No.383- No.2162-PL/PE- but was not
West Bengal State dated 30.03.2007) dated 30.03.2007) investigation wings in ten PS dated 30.03.2007 16S-36/05 dated tabled. A new
Security addressed to DGP, addressed to DGP, Police Stations under constituted a West 02.06.2010, Bill is
Commission, with WB and CP, Kolkata, West Bengal and Kolkata Police Bengal Police constituted a State reportedly
one year as its term intimating the Commissioner of Commissionerate area; and Establishment Board, Level Complaints being drafted.
of appointment. “principles to be Police Kolkata, DGP, WB, vide his order and a separate Authority.
followed for the laying down the No.05 dated 29.04.2010, Kolkata Police
Comments selection of DGP and principles to be formed separate Establishment Board. Comments
prescribing a followed for the investigation wings in 20
1) Composition does minimum tenure for tenure of police Urban Police Stations, in the Govt. of West Bengal 1) The composition
not follow any of the the incumbent. officers on first phase issued another of the Authority
three models operational duties in . Notification does not conform
Comments
mentioned in the the field. Comments (No.1549-P.S. dated to the Supreme
Supreme Court order. 1) The zone of 14.11.2009) Court directive.
consideration Comments Separation has not been constituting a Kolkata The Authority
2) The Commission includes four senior- effected so far in the Police Establishment sought to be
is to be headed by the most officers of the 1) Conditions for remaining 38 Police Stations Board created by West
Health Minister, not State cadre, instead of premature removal of of Kolkata city. Bengal
by the Chief Minister three. officers (before the Comments Government is to
who incidentally expiry of two-year be a five-member
holds the Home 2) The order is silent tenure) include vague 1) The orders in body with three of
portfolio himself. about empanelment and subjective respect of setting up them being serving
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
by UPSC. elements like of the Police officials (Home
3) A retired High “exhibiting palpable Establishment Boards Secretary, DGP
3) The criteria for
Court Judge and two bias”, “misuse of both for West Bengal West Bengal and
selection, as laid
non-officials are powers”, or Police and Kolkata Commissioner of
down in this letter is
included in the “incapacity in Police are broadly in Police, Kolkata).
sketchy and includes
Commission as discharge of official consonance with the The only non-
a vague and
Members but the duties”. directive except that official included as
subjective element
criteria of their the Boards are not a Member is a
like “experience for
selection is not 2) The provision authorized to retired DGP.
leading the police
known. relating to suspension function as forums of
force of the State”.
could also be subject appeal on 2) According to the
4) The tenure of two to misuse. representations from Supreme Court
years is subject to police officers on directive, the
superannuation service matters (other Authority is
than transfers / required to be
postings) and on their headed by a retired
being subjected to Judge of the
illegal or irregular Supreme Court /
orders. High Court and it
should have 3 to 5
non-officials as
members,
depending on the
volume of
complaints in the
State. They have to
be selected from
out of a panel of
names suggested
by the State
Human Rights
Commission /
Lokayukta / State
Public Service
Commission.

3) The term of the

 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
Authority, as per
the Notification, is
only one year.

4) No order
regarding the
constitution of the
District-level
Complaints
Authorities has
been issued so far.

12 Delhi & Order constituting SSC 1) Union Govt. is not Union Govt. agrees The order is claimed to have Boards have been set Notification Police Act
Union for all UTs (except in favour of involving that senior level been implemented in Delhi. up in all the UTs “as No.14040/45/2009- Drafting
Territories Delhi) issued on UPSC in preparing police functionaries per availability of UTP dated – March Committee
07.02.2013. the panel of officers should have a officers in a 2010) provides for headed by Soli
for selection of DGP. minimum tenure of particular UT”. the constitution of Sorabjee had
There will be separate
two years but only Police Complaints drafted Model
SSC for every UT 2) Govt. also does not Govt. does not favour
“as far as possible”. Authorities (PCAs) Police Act in
(except Delhi) with favour a fixed tenure Board being given
for Delhi and all the 2006. However,
Union Home Secretary and is opposed to appellate functions.
Union Territories. Delhi Police
as Chairman. giving that
Bill has yet to
irrespective of 1) GOI has set up
Comments be passed.
superannuation on the Public Grievance
1) SSC for UTs are ground that it would Commission for A Bill was
dominated by Govt. have legal and Delhi and PCA in drafted by the
representatives. There administrative all UTs. MHA in 2010
is only one repercussions. for Delhi.
PGC, through Govt.
independent member, Consultations
Resolution, has
other members being were held and,
been designated as
Home Secretary, Chief another draft
PCA for NCT of
Secy / Administrator was prepared,
Delhi.
and Joint Secretary but there is no
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
(UT), MHA. 2) PCAs for legislation yet..
Daman & Diu, According to
2) SSC for Delhi is
Dadra & Nagar press reports,
proposed to be headed
Haveli and Delhi Govt.
by L.G. with Chief
Lakshdweep will wants to dilute
Minister as member.
comprise only one certain
Other members
Member, i.e., the provisions of
include Leader of
Chairperson, who Bill.
Opposition in Delhi
may be either a
Legislative Assembly,
retired District
Jt Sec UT Division,
Judge or a retired
Commissioner of
Civil Service
Police and five
officer of the rank
independent members.
of Additional
Secretary or above;
or a person having
10 years of
experience in law as
a Judicial officer,
Public Prosecutor,
Lawyer, or
Professor of Law;
or a retired officer
with experience in
Public
Administration.
3) PCA for
Puducherry, A&N
Islands and
Chandigarh will
comprise the
Chairperson and
two members. The
Chairperson may be
either a retired High
Court / District
 Annexure - 1
Sl State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Police Complaints Remarks
. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from law Establishment Authorities
N &order Board
o. (Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.6)
(Direction No.5)
Judge, or a retired
Civil Service
officer of the rank
of Secretary. The
two Members may
be drawn from
amongst (a) a
person having 10
years of experience
in law, either as
Judicial officer,
Public Prosecutor,
Lawyer, or
Professor of Law,
(b) a person of
repute and stature
from the civil
society, (c) a retired
Police officers of
appropriate rank.
4) The provisions
relating to these
Authorities are at
total variance from
the Supreme Court
directive.
 Annexure II
Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on August 1, 2016)
(In States which have passed Police Acts)

Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)

1. Assam The Act [Sections 34 Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Constituted [Sections Assam State
& 35] provides for a 6]. 12(3)]. 55]. 44]. 70, 72, 78 & 84]. Police Act,
Commission. 2007 - in force
Comments Comments Comments Comments
Comments from 18.09.07.
Comments
1) Selection to be 1) Tenure of only Mechanics of Board not authorized 1) Methodology of
State Govt.
1) Leader of made from amongst 5 one year implementation not to: selection of
have said that,
opposition not senior most officers spelt out. chairpersons and
2) Limited to only 1) Recommend in the light of
included in the (not three). members not spelt
District SPs and postings / transfers of observations
composition. out.
2) Empanelment for SHOs Addl. SP & above. made by the
2) Method of selection the post to be done by 2) Recommendations Thomas
3) Removal clauses 2) Review Committee,
of non-official State Security not binding on the
include „public police performance. State Govt.
members to ensure Commission, not concerned authorities.
interest‟, „any
that the Commission UPSC. have decided to
contingency,
is able to function revisit the
3) Minimum tenure of which are liable to
independent of the Assam Police
only 1 year, and also misuse.
government control, Act to make it
subject to conform to the
not spelt out in the
Act. superannuation. directions of
4) Removal clauses Supreme Court.
3) Will not evaluate
include „inefficiency‟
police performance
„negligence‟,
4) Report not required „misdemeanour,
to be placed before the „public interest‟, all
State legislature. liable to misuse.
5) DGP can be
removed without
consulting Staff
Security Commission.
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
Bihar Police
2 Bihar The Act [Section 23] For the selection of Section 10 provides The Act [Section 10] The Act [Section 59]
The Act [Section 36] Act 2007 was
provides for setting up DGP, the Act [Section for a minimum tenure provides for the provides for the
provides for the passed by State.
a State Police Board, 6] prescribes of two years for creation of Transfer constitution of a
constitution of „Special
“within six months of “appointment from officers of the ranks of Committees (Police “District
Investigation Units‟. State has
the Act coming into out of a panel of Constables to Establishment Boards) Accountability
defiantly
force”. officers who are either Inspectors. for officers of the Authority”, for each
Comments recorded that
already working in the ranks of Constables to district.
Comments Section 30 provides a Courts have not
rank of DGP or are Inspectors.
tenure (“generally”, 1) These units will take Comments been conferred
1) The composition found suitable for
not minimum) of 2 up investigations only Comments with powers to
of the Board (Section promotion to the rank 1) There is no
years for supervisory of specified crimes make policy
24) does not conform of DGP” by a 1) For higher ranks of provision for a State-
police officers. instead of all crimes, decisions.
to any of the three Committee constituted District SPs, Range level Complaints
many of which will
models suggested by under the provision of Comments DIGs and Zonal IGs, Authority.
continue to be
the Supreme Court. It AIS Rules, 1961. there is no Board Act has been
1) Conditions for investigated into by the 2) The district-level
is a three-member (all Empanelment of provided for. transfers challenged at
premature removal law & order staff. Authorities, in their
officials) body of officers by the UPSC and postings of these state level.
or any other include subjective composition, do not
which the Chief 2) The provision, thus, officers will, thus, be
independent body is considerations, such conform to the
Secretary is the governed by rules
as incapacitation for does not fully satisfy Supreme Court
chairman, the DGP a not required. framed by the
“any other reasons” or the Supreme Court directive. Instead of
Member and the Government from
Comments “administrative direction. being headed by a
Home Secretary, the time to time.
grounds”, which are retired District Judge,
Member-Secretary. 1) The criteria for
subject to misuse. 2) Even the their Chairpersons will
empanelment is also
2) Its Need to fill vacancies Committees be the District
not spelt out.
recommendations are “caused by transfers” constituted under Magistrates concerned.
not binding on the 2) The minimum is also violative of the Section 10 of the Act
3) The other members
Government. tenure of two years is Supreme Court will deal with only
are also all officials
also not made guidelines. transfers and postings,
3) Its report is not with no representation
mandatory. It will and not with other
required to be placed of non-officials.
only “generally” be service-related
before the State
so, not necessarily. matters. 4) The
Legislature.
recommendations of
3) Conditions for 3) Those are not
the Authorities will not
premature removal of “departmental
be binding on the
DGP include bodies”, in their
administrative
subjective composition.
authorities concerned.
considerations, such
4) They are not also
as incapacitation for
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
“any other reasons” authorized to act as
and “administrative forums of appeal for
grounds”, which are disposing of
subject to misuse. representations from
police officers
regarding service
matters or their being
subjected to illegal or
irregular orders.
5) They are not
authorized to
generally review the
functioning of the
State Police.

3 Provides for the Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh
constitution of a State 12]. 14]. 32] the creation of 22]. 38 to 43]. Police Act
Police Commission “Special Crime legislated –
Comments Comments Comments Comments
[Sections 16]. Investigation Units” Notified on
1) It is silent about 1) Provision limited to 1) The functions are 1) Only a State-level 28.09.07
Comments Comments
empanelment of SHOs and District advisory and Police Accountability
1) The composition officers by UPSC SPs. No provision for 1) No specific recommendatory in Authority.
does not fully minimum tenure of provision for respect of transfers /
2) Provision implies 2) No provision for
conform to any of the two years for IG in- separation at the postings of DySPs.
that the two year constituting district-
three models charge of Zone, or police station level in
tenure is subject to 2) Intra-District and level Authorities.
suggested by the SC, DIG in-charge of urban areas.
superannuation. intra-Range transfers
in that the Leader of Range. 3) No provision for
of even subordinate
the Opposition is not 3) Silent about selection of the head
2) Removal clauses ranks (Inspector and
included as a Member. consultation with SSC of State-level
include below) do not fall in
There is no judicial before removing the Authority (a retired
“administrative the purview of the
element also included DGP. Judge) out of a panel
exigencies” which is Board.
as a Member. of names proposed by
4) Removal clauses prone to misuse.
3) No provision that the Chief Justice of
2) The Commission is include
the State Government the High Court.
given only advisory “administrative
shall interfere with the
role in its functions. exigencies” which are 4) Similarly, no
decisions of the Board
liable to misuse. provision for
3) Its reports are not in only exceptional
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
required to be put cases, after recording obtaining a panel of
up before the State its reasons for doing names from the State
Legislature. so. HRC / Lokayukta /
State PSC for
4) No provision
selection of other
authorizing the Board
members of the
to make appropriate
Authority.
recommendations to
the State Govt. 5) Recommendations
regarding posting and of the Authority are
transfers of officers of not binding on the
and above the rank of administrative
SP. authorities concerned.
5) No mention of
review of the
functioning of State
Police.

4 Gujarat Provides for the Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Sections
constitution of a SSC 5A]. 5B]. 7A]. 32 D]. 32F, G, H & I].
Bombay Police
[Section 32A]. Comments Comments Comments Comments Comments (Gujarat)
Comments 1) No empanelment Amendment
1) Tenure is two years 1) Leaves the 1) The Board is not an 1) Composition of the
by the UPSC. Instead, Act legislated –
1) Its composition ordinarily. The word decision about entirely departmental Authorities different
it will be done by a Notified on
does not comply with „ordinarily‟ is separation completely body, as envisaged in from the SC direction
Screening Committee 23.03.08
any of the models violative of the SC at the State the SC direction.
of the State 2) District Authorities
suggested by SC, in direction. Government‟s
Government. 2) The power of the have District SP as
that the Leader of the discretion.
2) The zone of 2) Some clauses for Board with regard to the Chairman instead
Opposition in the
consideration is not premature removal 2) Mechanics of transfers / postings is of a retired District
State Assembly is not
limited to three include subjective separation not spelt limited to the rank of Judge.
included as a member.
officers. elements, which could out. Inspector and Sub-
There is no judicial 3) No provision for
be prone to misuse. Inspector only.
element also included. 3) Selection criteria obtaining a panel of
Also, the number of laid down by the 3) No mention that the names for the
government Supreme Court State Govt. may chairmanship of the
functionaries (5) far ignored. interfere with the district-level
outweighs the number decisions of the Board Authorities from the
4) Tenure of DGP
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
of non-officials (2). will be „ordinarily‟ 2 in exceptional cases Chief Justice of the
years irrespective of only, after recording High Court.
2) Role is only
his date of its reasons for doing
advisory in laying 4) There is no non-
superannuation, but so.
down policy official member
the use of the word
guidelines. 4) The Board is not to included in the
„ordinarily‟ is
function as a forum of district-level
3) Does not have the violative of the SC
appeal for disposing Authorities. On the
power to make direction.
of representations other hand, two
binding 5) Some removal from officers MLAs have been
recommendations. clauses include regarding their included.
4) Annual report is not subjective elements, promotion / transfer
which could be prone 5) The State-level
required to be placed etc. or their being
to misuse. Authority could be
before the Legislature; subjected to illegal or
headed by either a
it has only to be 6) No provision for irregular orders.
retired High Court
submitted to the State consultation with 5) The Board is not Judge or a retired
Government „for State Security authorized to Principal Secretary to
consideration and Commission before generally review the the Government. The
appropriate action‟. removing the DGP functioning of State serving Principal
from the post. Police. Secretary, Home and
a police officer of or
above the rank of
ADGP will also be
member of the
Authorities.
6) Recommendations
of the State and the
District-level
Authorities are not
binding on the
administrative
authorities concerned.

Haryana Police
5 Haryana Sections 25, 26 and 30 Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Act legislated –
deal with composition 6]. 13]. 43] creation of 34], the creation of a 68] for the Notified on
and functions of State specialized Crime Police Establishment constitution of a 02.06.08
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
Police Board. Comments Comments Investigation Units. Committee for District Police Haryana Police
„administrative Complaint Authority (Amendment)
Comments 1) Specific criteria for 1) The tenure of an Comments
matters‟ . for each district “as Bill 2014
selection not IGP of a Range or SP
1) Members will 1) Units only at and when required”. provides for
enumerated and role of a District is only Comments
include either a Retd. district level, for the district level
of UPSC ignored in one year, instead of
High Court Judge or investigation of only 1) Does not specify Also provides for PCAs.
the selection. two years.
the Advocate General economic and heinous whether or not it will [Section 59] for
2) Tenure is only for 2) No fixed tenure crimes. have powers to decide establishing a Police
2) The functions of
one year, instead of provided for other transfers, postings, Complaints Authority
the Board are to only 2) All other
two years. officers on operational promotions and other at the State level,
„aid and advise‟ the crimes will continue to
duties in the field. service-related
State Government. 3) Selected DGP can be investigated by the Comments
matters of police
be removed without 3) Grounds for police handling law
3) No mention that the officers.
consultation with premature removal and order also.
report on the Board on 1) Composition of the
State Police Board. include the need to fill 2) No provision to
performance of the district-level
up a vacancy caused make appropriate
State police will be Authorities is not
by promotion, transfer recommendations to specified in the Act.
placed before the
or retirement of any the State Government
State legislature.
other officer, which is regarding posting and
2) Composition of
violative of the spirit transfers of officers of
State-level Authority
of the Supreme Court and above the rank of
is not in consonance
direction. SP
with Court‟s
3) The Police directives.
Establishment 3) The State-level
Committee is not Authority will be
authorized to act as a headed by either a
forum of appeal or retired Judge or a
disposing of retired Secretary to
representations from Government or a
police officers lawyer with 20 years
regarding transfer / of experience in
postings etc. or their criminal law. (State
being subjected to level PCA constituted
illegal or irregular vide notification dated
orders. 16.8.2010 is headed
4) It is also not by a retired IAS
authorized to officer).
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
generally review the 4) Recommendations
functioning of the of the Authority are
State Police. not binding on the
administrative
authorities concerned.

6 Himachal Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for creation Creation provided for
Himachal
Pradesh 48] a State Police 6]. 12]. 78] creation of a of a State Police [Sections 93, 94 &
Pradesh Police
Board. criminal investigation Establishment 95].
Comments Comments Act, 2007 was
unit in every police Committee [Section
Comments Comments passed.
1) No role for UPSC 1) Minimum tenure station for 56].
1) Composition does assigned in the rule not made investigation of only 1) The composition of
Comments
not conform to any of selection process. applicable to Zonal “serious offences‟. the State-level Police
the models IGPs and Range 1) The Committee is Complaints Authority
2) Act provides for a
recommended by the DIGs. authorized to approve is not in accordance
„Screening
Supreme Court. Comments postings and transfers with the direction of
Committee‟ headed 2) Removal clauses
“with the prior the SC.
2) There is no judicial by the Chief Secretary include 1)It will not amount to
approval of the
element in the to prepare panel for „administrative partial separation of 2) The Act does not
Government”.
composition. the selection of DGP. exigencies in the investigation from law specify the powers of
larger public interest‟ and order functions, as 2) No provision for the State-level
3) The number of 3) No minimum
which is prone to be bulk of crime will the Committee to act Authority, leaving
officials (10) far tenure provided.
misused. continue to be as forum of appeal for them to be “as may be
outweighs the number
4) Removal clauses investigated by law disposing of prescribed”.
of independent
include and order police. representations of
numbers (3). 3) The District-level
„administrative police officers
Authorities also, in
exigencies in the regarding service
their composition, will
larger public interest‟ matters other than
be different from that
which is prone to be transfers, or their
envisaged in the
misused. being subjected to
Supreme Court
illegal or irregular
5) Act is silent about directive. They will be
orders.
consultation with the headed by the
State Police Board 3) Also the Divisional
before the DGP is Committee is not Commissioners, with
removed from the authorized to non-official members
post. generally review the who will all be retired
functioning of State
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
Police. officials.
4) District-level
Authorities is not
authorized to itself
inquire into any
allegations of
misconduct by police
officers.
5) The
recommendations of
the District-level
Authorities will not be
binding on the
administrative
authority concerned.
Commission has been DGP will be selected Officers on Every police station Board constituted. Authorities Karnataka
7. Karnataka
constituted. by State Govt. High operational duties will have two units, constituted. Police
Power Committee given fixed tenure of one dealing with Comments (Amendment)
Comments comprising Home one year.. crime investigation Comments Act, 2012,
Minister, Law and other dealing with 1. It will have only 1. District Authority is received assent
1. It has no Minister, Chief Comments law & order. three senior police headed by Regional of Governor on
independent members Secretary and 1. Tenure is of one officers as against Commissioner and not August 8, 2012.
from civil society. Principal Secretary, year only. Comments four recommended by by Retd. District and
DPAR. DGP will have Court. Sessions Judge.
2. It is heavily tilted in tenure of not less than 1. SP has been 2. No mention of
favour of Govt. and two years. authorized to divert Board functioning as 2. SP is member of
will therefore not be Comments these officers. forum of appeal. District Authority. He
able to function may not have time for
“independent of Govt. 1. UPSC not given 2. No clear indication this job.
control”. any role in preparation that there would be
of panel. augmentation in staff 3. No indication that
2. Tenure is not to facilitate recommendations of
irrespective of separation. Authorities will be
superannuation. binding.
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
Constituted under Section 18 of Act Section 97 of Act Separation provided Board constituted Authorities Kerala Police
8. Kerala
Sections 24/25 of the provides for selection gives min. tenure to for in Section 23 has under Section 105. constituted under Act 2011 was
Act. and appointment of DGP and other been sanctioned in Section 110 of the Act passed.
DGP. officers on field Kochi, Comments were reconstituted
Later, Govt. duties. Thiruvananthapuram vide GO dated
constituted SSC vide Comments and Kozhikode. 1. It has no powers to 17.2.12.
GO issued on decide transfer
26.11.2011 1. It does not give any Proposal to extend the /posting of officers of Comments
role to UPSC in same in other districts and below the rank of
preparation of panel. under consideration Dy.SP. 1. Authorities have
presence of serving
2. DGP‟s tenure is 2. Not authorized to police officers and
subject to make bureaucrats – not
superannuation. recommendations envisaged in the
regarding posting/ Court‟s directions.
transfer of officers of
and above rank of SP.

3. Appellate authority
is limited to officers
of and below rank of
Inspector.

9. Maharashtra Maharashtra Police DGP shall be selected Police personnel shall Act is vague on this Two PEBs constituted Complaint Authorities Maharashtra
(Amendment and by State Govt. from have a normal tenure point. It merely says at state-level, one at set up at State/District Police
Continuance ) Act, amongst four senior- of two years. that local Crime Range level and a levels. (Amendment
2014 constitutes SSC most police officers Branch and Detection fourth one at and
Comments Comments
on Sorabjee model. from the cadre. and Investigation Commissionerate Continuance)
1) Government has, Cells in each police level. 1) No provision of Act, 2014
Comments Comments
however, retained the station shall panel for selection of promulgated on
Comments
1) Additional Chief 1) Role of UPSC in power of mid-term concentrate on Chairperson of 25.06.2014
Secretary (Home) also preparation of panel transfer of officers in investigation of 1) State level Board Division level PCA.
included in SSC; not recognized. public interest and in crimes and shall not headed by Addl.CS
be entrusted with law 2) Composition of
administrative is contrary to
2) Five non-official 2) Tenure is subject to Authorities not in
exigencies. These and order, security Court‟s directions,
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
members will be superannuation. could be misused. and other duties which mandated it keeping with Court‟s
nominated by State ordinarily. to be a directions.
Government. They “departmental
Comments 3) State Govt. has the
may not show required body”.
power to reject the
degree of objectivity; 1) The separation
2) At the state level, report of the State
arrangement for crime
3) Recommendations there should be only Police Complaints
work from L/O is
of SSC will be one Board. Authority. Court‟s
weak and would apply
advisory in nature. direction was that
“ordinarily”. 3) Powers of DGP
PCA
curtailed by
2) Without additional recommendations
Ordinance.
staff, separation will should be binding.
be on paper only. 4) Board not given State Govt had earlier
power to review taken the stand that
functioning of recommendation of
police in the State. “any Authority” can
never be binding on
5) State Govt. has State Government,
power to give and that such a
overriding directions
direction is
which will be binding
“inconsistent with and
on the Board.
contrary to the
procedure laid down
by the Constitution”
4) There are
provisions which
could unduly penalize
complainants.

State Security Section 6 of Act deals Field Officers given State has no City Board constituted. State level Meghalaya
10. Meghalaya
Commission dealt with selection/tenure tenure of two years. having population of Accountability Police Act,
with in Section 36 of of DGP,. more than ten lakhs. Comments Commission set up. 2010 notified on
Act 1. Board does not Comments 7.2.2011.
Comments have authority to
Comments decide transfer 1) .No mention of
1. UPSC not given /postings of junior District level
1. Commission is role in preparing panel officers. It can only Authority.
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
heavily tilted in “recommend”.
favour of govt. 2. DGP given tenure
of one year only 2. Review Committee
2. There is no judicial will make
element. 3. He may be shifted recommendations
in “public interest” about transfer/ posting
3. Recommendations of officers of the rank
shall be binding “to of IG/ Addl. DG.
the extent feasible”.
3. Appellate Authority
of Board will be
subject to Review
Committee headed by
Chief Secy.

Constituted . Notification issued Notification issued Exemption sought in Constituted State level Authority Mizoram Police
11. Mizoram
(DGP is appointed by view of thin provided for under Act, 2011
Comments MHA) population of State Section 101, District passed on Dec.
Level under Section 19, 2011.
However, composition Comments 114.
is not as per
notification. No Tenure is not Comments
judicial element. irrespective of
superannuation. 1) State Level
Authority has no
independent members.

2) District Level
Authority‟s
composition differs
from Court‟s
directions.
Punjab Police
12. Punjab Constituted [Section Provides for [Sections Provides for [Section Complied. Constituted [Section Created [Section 54]
Act, 2007 – in
27(2)]. 6(1) & 6(2). 15(1)]. 32(1)]. for both the State and
[Section 36(1)] force from
District levels PCAs,
Comments Comments Comments Comments 20.02.08
Implemented in five
1) It does not adhere 1) Zone of 1) Police officers on districts, vide letter 1) The Board not
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
+to any of the three consideration is not operational duties are dated 7.4.2007. authorized to make Comments Punjab &
models suggested by limited to three senior- only assured one Process being recommendations on Haryana High
Their composition
the Supreme Court. most officers. year‟s minimum expanded. postings/ transfers of Court directed
/functions are not
tenure, „extendable to officers of the rank of State Govt. in
2) Composed of only 2) Silent on the specified.
a maximum period of SP and above. Sept. 2013 to
government empanelment as also
three years”. set up District
functionaries. There the selection criteria. 2) No provision also
PCAs within
are no independent for the Board to
3) The minimum three months in
members on the function as a forum of
tenure of two years is response to a
Board, nor a sitting or appeal for disposing
subject to petition.
retired judge or the of representations
superannuation.
Leader of Opposition. from officers
4) DGP can be regarding their
3) Recommendations
removed prematurely promotion, transfer or
are not binding on the
“for special reasons, to their being subjected
State Government.
be recorded in writing” to illegal or irregular
orders.
5) Consultation with
State Security
Commission for the
removal of DGP not
required.

13. Rajasthan Provides for [Sections Provides for [Section Complied. Provides for [Section Constituted [Section Provides for [Section Rajasthan
21, 22 & 26]. 13]. 42] creation of a 28]. 62 & 63]. Police Act,
[Sections 14, 15, 16,
separate Crime 2007 – Notified
Comments Comments 17 & 19] Comments Comments
Investigation Unit in on 01.11.07
1) The role of the 1) The Act omits the each Police Station. 1) The Board will 1) There are variations
Commission is sought provision for only prescribe from the Supreme
Comments
to be limited only to empanelment of guidelines for transfer Court direction in the
„advising‟ and officers by UPSC. 1) Leaves the of subordinate ranks, composition of
„assisting‟ the State discretion to the State with the approval of District and State
2) The parameters for
Government. Government which the State Government, Police Accountability
empanelment are also
may decide it from not decide on transfer Committees.
2) The composition not specified.
time to time. / postings as such.
does not conform to 2) The Committees
3) Silent about
any of the models 2) Crime Investigation 2) The Board are not to be headed
consultation with
noted in the SC Units in a authorized only to by judicial members.
State Security
metropolitan area prepare proposals for
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
direction. Commission before shall be established transfers of Addl. SPs, 3) The selection of
removing the DGP. within “a period not not of SPs and other Members of both the
3) There is no judicial
exceeding five years senior officers. State and District-
element included in
from the notification level Authorities, is
the Commission. 3) No provision for
of a metropolitan left entirely to the
the Board to function
4) An officer not area”. discretion of the State
as a forum of appeal
below the rank of Government – not
for disposing of
ADGP is made from out of panels to
representations from
Member-Secretary of be prepared in
officers on service
the Commission, accordance with the
matters including their
instead of DGP. Supreme Court‟s
being subjected to
direction.
5) Commission not illegal or irregular
constituted yet. orders. 4) The
recommendations of
4) Not to undertake a
the Authorities are not
review of police
binding on the
functioning.
concerned authority.
The Committees are
authorized only to
make
recommendations.
5) PCAs yet to be
constituted.

14. Sikkim Provides for DGP to be selected by Notification dated Provides for Section 52 of Act Provides for [Sections Sikkim Police
constitution [Sections a Screening 28.12.2006 provides separation [Section provides for PEB 132, 133, 138, 140 & Act legislated –
39, 40 & 41],. Committee two year tenure to IG, 97] by creating a headed by DGP and 141] a State-level Notified on
comprising Chief SP and SHO Special Crime comprising three other Police Complaints 30.07.08
Comments
Secretary, Addl.Chief Investigation Unit at senior police officers. Authority only in
Section 11 of Act
1) In its composition, Secretary (Plg) and PS level in such view of small size of
provides two year Comments
the official members Principal Secretary crime-prone areas or the State and low
tenure to SP and SHO.
constitute a large (Personnel) under urban areas as 1) The transfers / volume of complaints
majority. [Section 6]. Comments “considered postings of DySPs are
Comments
necessary”. kept out of the
Comments: 1) Provisions such as
Committee‟s purview. 1. Recommendations
„suspension from
1) UPSC‟s role in the of the Authority are
service‟, and 2) The Committee is
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
empanelment process „administrative also not authorized to not to be binding on
ignored. exigencies in larger function as a forum of the administrative
public interest‟, are appeal for disposing authority concerned.
2) The tenure of DGP
prone to misuse. of representations
is subject to
from police officers
superannuation.
regarding service
3) The DGP could be matters other than
removed prematurely transfers / postings,
without consultation and regarding their
with the State Security being subjected to
Commission. illegal or irregular
orders.
4) Provisions such as
„suspension from
service‟, and
„administrative
exigencies in larger
public interest‟, are
prone to misuse.
SSC constituted, vide DGP will be selected Officers incharge Section 9 of Act Act provides for Complaints
15. Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu
sections 5 & 6 of the from panel prepared police station, SP i/c provides for several tiers of Authority Police
Act. by UPSC and will District and separation in every Establishment Boards
have tenure of two Commissioner of police station except – one for officers of
established at (Reforms) Act
State and District 2013
Comments years. Police will have those specifically the rank of SP and
levels. promulgated on
tenure of two years. designated as Crime above upto the rank of
Sept. 11, 2013.
1. Composition does Comments Police Stations. IG only, another for
not follow any of officers of and below Comments
1. Grounds for
three models the rank of Addl. SP
premature removal
prescribed by Court. Comments and Boards at Zonal,
include “other 1. Authorities are
Range, City and
administrative headed by
2. SSC has 1. Act is silent about District Levels.
grounds to be
Chairpersons of Tamil tenure of DIG i/c bureaucrats at
recorded in writing.”
Nadu Public Service Range or IG i/c Zone. Comments both levels – by
This could be
Commission, State
Human Rights
misused.
1. DGP alone (and not
Home Secretary at
2. Officers may be
Commission, State PEB) will send state level and
transferred on
Women‟s proposals for officers Collector / DM at
2. Court had wanted “administrative
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
Commission, State UPSC to prepare grounds to be of and above the rank
district level.
Minorities panel of three. Act recorded in writing.” of IGP. Direction was that
Commission as provides for panel of
members. They are all five officers. 2. Not clear that
they should be
ex-officio members, Intention appears to recommendations of headed by retired
are government be to give more PEB will be given Judges.
nominees and latitude to CM. “due weight” by the
therefore cannot be Government, which
considered should normally 2. Authorities will
independent. accept them. make
“recommendations
3. Not clear that 3. Composition and ” to state
recommendations of functions of Police government for
the Commission will Establishment appropriate action.
be binding. Committees at Zonal,
Range, City and
Direction was that
District levels have these should be
not been clarified. binding on state
4. Board has not been government.
given power to
generally review the
functioning of police
in this State.

16. Tripura Provides for a State Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Sections Provides for a Police Provides for [Sections Tripura Police
Police Board, 6]. 11]. 50-55] separation of Establishment 59] only one Police Act, 2007 is in
[[Sections 20]. Comments Comments investigation Committee [Section Accountability force from
functions . 27],. Commission for the 07.04.2009.
Comments 1) Minimum tenure
1) No role of UPSC in entire State.
not applicable to IGPs Comments
1) Its composition empanelment of Comments
incharge of Zones and Comments
does not comply with officers. 1) No specific
any of the models DIGs incharge of provision for not 1) It does not specify 1) No provision for
2) No empanelment Ranges.
suggested by SC, in by any other body diverting the that the Committee District-level
that the Leader of the also. 2) Ground of personnel of crime shall decide all Complaints
Opposition is not „suspension from units to law and order transfers, postings and Authorities.
3) Tenure is subject to
included. service‟ is prone to duties. other service-related
2) No provision for
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
2) Recommendations superannuation. misuse. matters of police choosing the
of the Board are not 4) DGP can be officers of and below Chairperson from out
3) Ground of
binding. the rank of DySP. of a panel of names
removed without „inefficiency or
consultation with the proposed by the Chief
3) Report of the Board negligence prima-
State Police Board. 2) No provision for Justice of the High
is not required to be facie established after
the Committee to act Court.
placed before the 5) Ground of a preliminary enquiry‟
as a forum of appeal
State Legislature “suspension from not found in the SC
for disposing of
3) No provision also
service” is prone to directive.
complaints from
for selection of
misuse. members from a panel
police officers
of names prepared by
6) Ground regarding their being
the State Human
of„inefficiency or subjected to illegal
Rights Commission /
negligence prima- orders. It has only to
Lok Ayukta / State
facie established after make appropriate
Public Service
a preliminary enquiry‟ recommendations to
Commission.
not found in the SC the competent
directive. The nature authority in such 5) No provision
of such a preliminary cases. specifying that the
enquiry has not been recommendations of
spelt out in the Act. 3) No provision also the Commission shall
for the Committee to be binding on the
review the functioning administrative
of the State Police. authorities concerned.

17. Uttarakhand Provides for a State Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section Provides for [Section
Uttarakhand
Police Board [Section 20]. 28]. 50] creation of special 38]. 64], State-level PCA.
Police Act 2007
29]. crime investigation
Comments Comments Comments Comments – in force from
units for police district
Comments 04.01.08
1) Does not provide 1) The tenure of or police stations. 1) State Government 1) The Act is silent
1) There is no judicial for selection of DGP officer in charge of given broad about constituting
element in the from a panel of names Police Station is overriding power over Police Complaints
composition of the prepared by the limited to a minimum decisions of the Police Authorities at the
Board. UPSC. Instead, it of one year instead of Establishment District level.
stipulates a „screening two years. Committee. However,
2) The number of 2) The State-level
committee‟ the Government has to
official functionaries 2) The proviso of Authority is not to be
„constituted by the record its reasons for
in the Board transferring any police headed by a retired
State Government‟, to
 Annexure II
Sl. State Security Selection & Tenure Tenure of other Separation of Police Establishment Police Complaints Remarks
No. State Commission of DGP Officers Investigation from Board Authorities
law &order
(Direction No.1) (Direction No.2) (Direction No.3) (Direction No.4) (Direction No.5) (Direction No.6)
outweighs the number prepare a panel of officer from his post doing so. Judge of the High
of non-official / officers for selection before expiry of Court /Supreme
2) It is not authorized
independent members. as DGP. tenure „in public Court, to be selected
to function as a forum
interest‟ is prone to be from out of a panel of
3) The Act stipulates 2) The tenure of DGP of appeal for
misused. names proposed by
that the Board‟s as 2 years is subject to disposing of
the Chief Justice.
functions are simply superannuation. representations from
to provide police officers 3) Similarly, the
3) Premature removal
„suggestions‟ and regarding service members are not
possible without
„advice‟ to the State matters or their being required to be selected
consultation with
Government. subject to illegal or from out of a panel of
SSC.
irregular orders. names prepared by the
4) Its
4) Premature removal State Human Rights
recommendations are 3) It is also not
is possible for „gross Commission / Lok
not binding. authorised to review
inefficiency and Ayukta / State Public
the functioning of the
. negligence‟ where Service Commission.
State Police.
prima facie a case of
4) The
serious nature has
recommendations of
been established after
the Authority are not
a preliminary enquiry.
binding on the
The nature of such a
administrative
preliminary enquiry
authorities concerned
has not been outlined
in the Act.