Police reforms have been constantly in demand. After Independence, all the major States set up Police Commissions and in 1977, a National Police Commission was also set up.These Commissions have made a plethora of recommendations touching every aspect of police work and in 2006, the Supreme Court has also issued many directions for police reforms. However, reforms have remained elusive and people still see police as corrupt, brutal and incompetent. The dominance of politicians over police is certainly one reason for failure of these efforts at reforms but not the only one. I fought off politicians all my serving life and yet I couldn't rid my force of these evils. So, I am of the view that the main reason for the failure of the reform efforts is that the root causes of police malfeasance have never been addressed.
One such cause is the governance-philosophy in respect of police which the British had crafted and which has been continued even after Independence. Under this philosophy, the government expected the (native) Staion House Officer to keep crime and criminals under control, and the (British) District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police to keep the subordinates from comitting excesses, which were commonplace previously, through strict supervision.
By all accounts, the police under the Mughal regime preceeding the British was ridden with corruption and torture of suspect in order to extract confession was a common practice. So,when a new protocol for investigation of crimes was laid down through Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code and thePolice Act - that an arrested person would be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, that no threat or promise would be held out during interrogation,causing hurt in order to extract confession would lead to imprisonment, and that confession made to a police officer would not be admitted in evidence ( except the portion which might have resulted in the discovery of some relevant fact)- it created difficulties for the SHOs. These difficulties were compounded by two structural features of the new police. One was that the strength of the PSs was held down to the minimal. Therefore if, for example, the SHO were investigating a case of dacoity at a distant location and arrested a suspect and sent him away to be produced before a magistrate, he was left with little help in completing his investigations The other was section 7 of the Police Act which provides that a superior officers may ( now, subject to Article 311) at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligient in the discharge of duty, or unfit for the same. For the short-staffed SHO, it meant that he had to keep his superiors in good humour (in the expectation that his lapses would not be judged too harshly), that consideration of what his superiors might think of his actions was more important than correctness, and that he had to prevent and detect crimes and keep criminals under control, anyhow.
There is no doubt in my mind that the practice of detaining suspects without formal arrest was evolved by ingenious native officers in response to these organisational pressures because if one has to draw the truth out of an unwilling witness or suspect without resorting to any threat, promise or torture, it can only be done by sustained (so, necessarily prolonged) questioning in custody, which was now denied. The report of the second Police Commission bears it out that such detention without arrest - which was termed illegal by the Commission - had become widely prevelant by 1902.
There is also no doubt that British officers were aware of the difficulties being faced by SHOs in effective interrogation of suspects, but they could not do anything to help. However, since prevention and detection of crimes was necessary, it seems the officers adopted a pragmatic course: they left SHOs to their devices during investigations and adopted an ambivalent attitude towards later complaints of torture so long as irrefutable evidence was not provided. This conclusion is borne out by the writings of several British officers of the time which said that complaints of torture were incessant but proof was never forthcoming: Sir Edward Fox, who said that stopping tortures was the raison d'etre of superior officers, found such complaints false because "had there been any truth in them, at least a moitey of them should have been capable of proof ". Even a former Chief Justice wrote that while complaints were many, none was ever proved (DR AGupta). Planting evidence and then 'discovering' it at the instance of confessing accused was a necessary corolary to extorting confessions because confessions were not admissible in evidence, and I imagine that, encouraged by the pragmatism of the superior officers, the native officers took to this device under the benign eyes of the same superiors -in order that criminals could be convicted and put away behind bars.And, the doors were then wide open for corruption.
Thus, sychophancy,corruption, pre-arrest detention, torture, and planting of evidence were established police practices by the time the British rule ended and the pragmatic approach of ambivalence towards complaints of such irregularities had become the accepted wisdom for supervisory officers. This had the unfortunate result of giving the practitioners of these dubious arts salience within the police organisation so that succeeding generations of policemen have been following in their foot-steps. Since superior police officers of Independant India have not been able to change this , we are where we are in public standing.
The National Police Commission did mention in its last report that it was impossible for police, working strictly by laws, to secure convictions against dacoits and other criminals. This never received much attention but maybe this holds the key to effective reforms.
Bhopal:
17.08.2018.
( Critical comments can be posted here; there is no monitoring.)
One such cause is the governance-philosophy in respect of police which the British had crafted and which has been continued even after Independence. Under this philosophy, the government expected the (native) Staion House Officer to keep crime and criminals under control, and the (British) District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police to keep the subordinates from comitting excesses, which were commonplace previously, through strict supervision.
By all accounts, the police under the Mughal regime preceeding the British was ridden with corruption and torture of suspect in order to extract confession was a common practice. So,when a new protocol for investigation of crimes was laid down through Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code and thePolice Act - that an arrested person would be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, that no threat or promise would be held out during interrogation,causing hurt in order to extract confession would lead to imprisonment, and that confession made to a police officer would not be admitted in evidence ( except the portion which might have resulted in the discovery of some relevant fact)- it created difficulties for the SHOs. These difficulties were compounded by two structural features of the new police. One was that the strength of the PSs was held down to the minimal. Therefore if, for example, the SHO were investigating a case of dacoity at a distant location and arrested a suspect and sent him away to be produced before a magistrate, he was left with little help in completing his investigations The other was section 7 of the Police Act which provides that a superior officers may ( now, subject to Article 311) at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligient in the discharge of duty, or unfit for the same. For the short-staffed SHO, it meant that he had to keep his superiors in good humour (in the expectation that his lapses would not be judged too harshly), that consideration of what his superiors might think of his actions was more important than correctness, and that he had to prevent and detect crimes and keep criminals under control, anyhow.
There is no doubt in my mind that the practice of detaining suspects without formal arrest was evolved by ingenious native officers in response to these organisational pressures because if one has to draw the truth out of an unwilling witness or suspect without resorting to any threat, promise or torture, it can only be done by sustained (so, necessarily prolonged) questioning in custody, which was now denied. The report of the second Police Commission bears it out that such detention without arrest - which was termed illegal by the Commission - had become widely prevelant by 1902.
There is also no doubt that British officers were aware of the difficulties being faced by SHOs in effective interrogation of suspects, but they could not do anything to help. However, since prevention and detection of crimes was necessary, it seems the officers adopted a pragmatic course: they left SHOs to their devices during investigations and adopted an ambivalent attitude towards later complaints of torture so long as irrefutable evidence was not provided. This conclusion is borne out by the writings of several British officers of the time which said that complaints of torture were incessant but proof was never forthcoming: Sir Edward Fox, who said that stopping tortures was the raison d'etre of superior officers, found such complaints false because "had there been any truth in them, at least a moitey of them should have been capable of proof ". Even a former Chief Justice wrote that while complaints were many, none was ever proved (DR AGupta). Planting evidence and then 'discovering' it at the instance of confessing accused was a necessary corolary to extorting confessions because confessions were not admissible in evidence, and I imagine that, encouraged by the pragmatism of the superior officers, the native officers took to this device under the benign eyes of the same superiors -in order that criminals could be convicted and put away behind bars.And, the doors were then wide open for corruption.
Thus, sychophancy,corruption, pre-arrest detention, torture, and planting of evidence were established police practices by the time the British rule ended and the pragmatic approach of ambivalence towards complaints of such irregularities had become the accepted wisdom for supervisory officers. This had the unfortunate result of giving the practitioners of these dubious arts salience within the police organisation so that succeeding generations of policemen have been following in their foot-steps. Since superior police officers of Independant India have not been able to change this , we are where we are in public standing.
The National Police Commission did mention in its last report that it was impossible for police, working strictly by laws, to secure convictions against dacoits and other criminals. This never received much attention but maybe this holds the key to effective reforms.
Bhopal:
17.08.2018.
( Critical comments can be posted here; there is no monitoring.)
