Why bother with Complaints.

All police forces publish annual reports which show, among other things, how many complaints were received and how they were disposed off and, although they don't exactly say so, they do convey the sense that all is well. The public perception is, however, quite the contrary and more and more frequently people are resorting to agitations in public places to register their protest against police actions (or lack of it) because they think it is futile to take their complaint to senior officers. But is this reason enough for over-worked police officers to invest more time and energy on public complaints which mostly turn out to be false?

To find the answer, it would be useful to consider what happens when a true complaint of torture in custody is made, an officer inquires and finds it 'not proved'( not necessarily because he wants to shield the guilty, but because proof is really not forthcoming). The first thing that happens  is that the complainant, his family and friends are convinced that the senior officers were complicit in the torture and the public perception that it is futile to take complaints to senior officers gets more firmly entrenched. Secondly, the rogue officer is emboldened and if he has succeeded in working out some crime by using third-degree and gets rewarded for it, use of torture as a tool of investigation gets validated (Justice MG Chitkara has written in his book that an incumbent Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission advised an assembly of judicial officers that  use of third-degree is to some extent a part of the investigative process) and the right-doers in the force get demoralised. Thirdly, the other subordinates, who know what all has happened, lose faith in the officer's competence to dig out the truth and lose respect for him, attenuating his moral authority over the subordinates. Fourthly, corruption gets entrenched: we must remember that third-degree is indispensable for extorting bribes and  if people do not fear torture at the hands of the police, the police can't make money. Fifthly and most importantly, when new recruits join the police, they find that they have two sets of role-models to choose from. One comprising third-degree specialists, seen as intrepid (willing to dare the law and their own officers to catch them out), public-spirited (as they claim that they torture suspects only to help the victims of crime), relatively professionally successful and highly spoken of in the public, and well-off (on bribes). The other set, comprised of right-doers, is seen as plodders, not very successful professionally , well spoken of in public but considered fit to be put in temples rather than in field , and not so well off (living on their salaries alone). There can be no doubt which set wins the vote of the young minds and thus, it affects the character of the whole young generation and, ultimately, the whole force in the long run.The answer to the question posed must, therefore, be an emphatic yes: it is imperative that supervisory officers inquire into complaints against their subordinates, as many as they can handle, and dig out the truth, no matter what it takes in terms of their time and energy.

There is, however, another factor to be taken into account: nowadays, the mood of the people is such that  even the most diligent inquiry may not be acceptable to the people if it ultimately exonerates the accused police officer. Therefore, senior police officers would be well advised to associate a person of repute with their inquiries. If the State Human Rights Commission, the State Women's  Commission and the State SC/ST Commission are agreeable, their nominees should be invited to co-chair any inquiry.

Before closing, I would mention an incident which shows how strongly third-degree methods affect the people. There was a murder and as SP I went to supervise the investigation. On arrival in the village I was met by the Station  Officer and the Circle Inspector who told me that a person who had been sleeping near the deceased had confessed to the crime and been taken into custody. So, after spot-inspection, I spoke to the person and he readily confessed to the crime and gave fairly detailed account of it. However, he did not seem to have a motive and his body language made me suspect that he was lying and I began to question him. Finally after about two hours, I was able to persuade him to confess that his original confession was false, that he had nothing to do with the crime and that he had confessed to the crime only to escape third-degree at the hands of the police (although he was adamant till the end that no policeman had suggested this course to him). Luckily, we caught the real culprit soon after and secured a conviction from the court .


(You can post your comments directly, there is no monitoring.)


17.10.2016.

On 14th October, all TV channels showed the PM showering fulsome praise on the military personnel. At the same time they prominently showed the mother of a martyr complaining that police had demanded a bribe to find her son's medal which had been stolen. The next day, papers also said that CM had asked policemen to be paraded so that the culprit could be identified. Watching/reading the news was a painful experience. How one wished that senior police officers had  handled her complaint differently!!

Using local herbs as insecticides

I am staying on a 1-acre farm and growing fruits, flowers, vegetables and spices for my own use. When I started, I had to use very large quantities of insecticides. However, I soon noticed that insects don't attack some plants, such as neem, gajar ghas, ipomoea, custard apple etc. So, I decided to take leaves of all such plants, crush them, soak them in water for some time and use the filtered extract as spray on my plants. I soon discovered that this was very effective way of controlling insects, so much so that I no longer keep any insecticide with me and only very occasionally buy the minimum quantity of an insecticide for use against insects that don't yield to my mixture. This not only saves me money  but also guards against ingestion of harmful insecticidal residues.

I wish the Agricultural Colleges would take up research on the insecticidal properties of  these plants which grow as weeds in most fields and inform the farmers how to make use of them  and thereby save a lot of money for the farmers and save the general public from harmful effects of residual
insecticides.

( You can post your comments directly )  

Citizen's Monitoring of the Police

Kejriwal has claimed that because he has set up a help-line for citizens to register their complaints and to learn how to 'sting' public servants, corruption in Delhi has come down to negligible limits. To the extent that there is substance in this claim, it shows that fear of exposure and subsequent action can deter the corrupt to some extent.

In this context my suggestion for citizen's monitoring committees at the PSs needs to be re-looked.

I have suggested that there should be a citizens committee at each Police-Station which can entertain complaints from the people and ask questions of the PS and put the whole matter before senior officers, the govt and the media, if it is not satisfied with the response of the PS. The committee could have, say, seven members, which is a manageable number and which is not likely to be dominated by one party.I have suggested that all elected representatives living in the area should elect the members by a secret ballot so that the  committees enjoy the confidence of all elected representatives but need not share their compulsions; that only residents of the area, who are easily accessible to all, should be eligible, so that nobody has difficulty in getting heard; and that all those whom the SC has held ineligible for elections should be ineligible for membership of these committees. I have suggested that the Committees should be statutory, so that police may not take them lightly;that the law itself should make it clear that a committee can ask questions only as a committee and that individual members may not approach the police on their own ( so that there is no possibility of an under-hand deal between a member and the police in any matter), and that it should be absolutely clear that a committee can only ask questions of the PS and convey public concerns to them, but cannot interfere with police work in any way. I have further suggested that superior police officers should be obliged to inquire when the committee so recommends so that their impact is felt, that the inquiring officer should co-opt a nominee of the State Human Rights Commission and/or a nominee of the Women's Commission if a woman is alleged to have been harassed by the police and/or a nominee of the SC&ST Commission if the complainant belongs to SC or ST; and that a SDOP-level officer should be put in charge of each PS so that complaints referred by the committees can be quickly inquired  and better leadership and guidance is provided to the PS staff and bad behaviour is nipped in the bud. I have commended the suggestion that PSs should have CCTV cameras so that there is a record of how the PS staff have behaved with complainants, witnesses and suspects and suggested that there should be e-registration of FIR and that the district control room should react immediately to a report of an incident and hand over the case to PS concerned in due course.I have further suggested that govts must simultaneously sanction welfare schemes for the police, which would compensate them for the hazards of service, including inability to devote time to children.

I don't think any party will oppose legislation to set up citizens' committees; all other suggestions can be put into effect through executive orders, without delay and without much financial outlay.

(You can post your comments directly, there is no monitoring)

  

If I were the Home Minister - (concl.)

I have now been in the job for some time and I have visited police-stations, police-lines, control-rooms, and police training institutions . I have talked to many persons including trial-judges, lawyers, police officers of all ranks, social workers and some persons who have been cited as prosecution witnesses but have yet to testify as also a few who admit to having resiled from the statement made to the police, while testifying in the court.

I now understand that the police cannot offer the kind of protection which the people want unless the Criminal Justice System is reformed as a whole. However, I don't say anything  in the public because. at present, it will only be dismissed as an apology for the police. I am also convinced that there is an urgent need for a large increase in police strength but I am loth to sanction it until police show some signs of change and until I am satisfied that an increase in police strength will actually benefit the people and will be appreciated by them. However, being a politician, I am also very keen to do somethings that will show the people that I am on the ball.

I have noticed that every time the police are seen behaving in an inappropriate manner, a cry goes up to improve their training. So, I tell the DGP to go for a complete overhaul of the police training institutions (including staff) so that police training in the State comes on par with the best in the country. 

I know that despite their antipathy, the people do want  larger police presence in their areas and quicker police response to incidents. So, I ask the DGP to prepare for it and the next time there is an incident which attracts large public attention, I announce a substantial increase in the number of two-wheeler and four-wheeler patrols. 

Since registration of FIRs is another hot public issue, I decide that a law officer would be posted in each district to advise SP on legal matters and, particularly, to assist in e-registraton of FIRs ( refer to my blog of 20th Feb '13). 

I persuade the government to strengthen the forensic science laboratories so that investigations are not held up on that account. I also persuade the government to set up a group of experts to examine the feasibility of character-assessment so that unsuitable persons could be screened out from police and other public services at the recruitment stage or during initial training.

As already mentioned, I think that the CJS needs to be holistically reformed and that is possible only if all the stake-holders come on one platform and discuss the issues. So, I organise frequent seminars to facilitate such discussions and I make sure that members of the monitoring committees get a prominent part in them. On my part, I not only point to the delays in trials which amount to denial of justice, but also emphasise that the System must be made witness-centric so that people willingly come forward as witnesses. I forcefully point out that if a witness is intimidated or otherwise induced not to speak the truth at the trial, it leads to perversion of justice and therefore, the persons involved, as also a witness who wilfully perjures himself, must be visited with swift and condign punishment.

I now wait for the results (and the next elections).

You can post your comments directly,there is no monitoring. 

If I were the Home Minister,,,Part 1

If I were the Home Minister, what would I do about the police?

Being a politician, I would not be so much concerned about what needs to be done as what the public wants to see done, though I would like to know, and would want the public also to know, why the police problem has remained intractable despite all the efforts that have gone into 'police reforms' in the past 66 years.

What the public wants, I know, is that the police should be effective and protect its life, property and dignity against all comers, be they ordinary criminals, mafias, netas or terrorists. At the same time, the public wants the police to be non-corrupt, unbiased, and civil and cured of its penchant for fabricating evidence and staging encounters. When I reflect upon it, I conclude that it is necessary to cleanse the police before raising its effectiveness as otherwise the innocent people who are fixed by the police would find it harder to escape.

I know that there are a few men in public services (including police) who are incorruptible, who will not bend, come what may; there are several who are in the services only for money and power and will not desist from their nefarious activities as long as they remain in service; and the remaining will bend with the breeze: they will refrain from dis-honesty as long as they fear being caught but will make merry when they think they can get away with it. So, in essence, what I need to do is to find a reliable method of identifying the good and the bad so that the good ones can be encouraged, the bad ones  weeded out, and the others learn from it. On further reflection, however, I think that given the present state of police morale, reward/punishment to a small number of good/bad men might not be enough to bring the bulk of the force to the path of rectitude: it would also need good leadership at the cutting edge and a general incentive for all the right-doers.

My first task, then, is to find a reliable method of identifying the good policemen and the bad.  I know that I can identify a few, but their numbers can be counted on the fingers. I can ask my party colleagues, but I have seen them fighting for postings and transfers of public servants and I fear that their views might be coloured by their private and political interests. Sometimes, the media highlights cases wherein the roles of some public servants are shown in good/bad light but the numbers are still very small and quite often the media stories are also based on information from 'sources', which could be questionable. So, I turn to the suggestion made in some quarters that citizens' monitoring committees be formed at the police-station level. It seems to me that if a  body of public-spirited citizens is empowered to monitor police work at the cutting edge, it will certainly throw up identities of good and bad policemen and put a check on police malpractices, to boot. I consult senior police officers and bureaucrats about it but I find they are not very enthusiastic about the idea. Some are of the view that police cannot work out crimes and control criminals by strictly legal methods and therefore such monitoring will lower the detection rates even further. Since the people want an end to police obduracy and brutality in any case, I over-rule this objection. I also point out that if police have genuine difficulties in bringing criminals to book through legal methods, then these difficulties should be known to the public (which such committees could facilitate) so that there will be a better chance of the difficulties being removed.   However, many more officers fear that such committees will inevitably interfere with police work and make it impossible for police to do their job 'without fear or favour'. I think this difficulty can be overcome if we stipulate that a committees will ask questions only as a committee and that no member shall  ask any questions on his own and also make it clear that the committee will have  the power only to ask questions, to expose suspected malfeasance, and not the power to command. I also think that this measure would be in line with the current upsurge for empowering people and will, therefore, prove to be  very popular and so I decide in its favour.

I realize, of course, that the success of this measure will depend on getting the right persons to serve on the committees and on ensuring that every committee's voice is heard and acted upon.. So, I declare that  only permanent residents of the area shall be eligible to serve on these committees and that persons whom the Supreme Court has recently banned from contesting/holding public posts shall be ineligible. To select the members, I lay down that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer shall call all the elected  representatives of the people (from village panchayat member to Lok Sabha member) residing in the PS jurisdiction. to a meeting, explain the role and functions of the committee, the rules of eligibility/dis-qualification and then ask  each village panchayat to elect, then and there, by secret ballot, one person and one alternate to the committee. After that, the SDPO shall check that the elected persons are eligible and  willing to serve on the committee and then announce the committee as constituted. To ensure that the committee's voice is heard and promptly acted upon,I shall lay it down that when a committee is not satisfied with the answers given by the PS, it will report all the facts and its opinion/suspicion to the SP and forward a copy to my office (and to media, if it wants to).To ensure action, I shall also direct that SDPO (or more snior officer,as appropriate) will personally enquire into each such complaint; that he will co-opt a public person of repute in the enquiry; and that he will keep my office  informed about the progress of every such enquiry.

To provide leadership at the PS level (and to cope with the extra work-load of enquiries), I will lay down that a SDPO will be incharge of only one PS so that he will have full opportunity to interact with the men and to guide them as well as to supervise them closely and eliminate chances of fabricating evidence or staging encounters.

The resultant increase in the number of posts of SDPO, which will necessarily improve the promotion prospects of all subordinate ranks,will be, I am sure, a powerful incentive  for all those who wish to work on the right side of law. I would strongly urge the DGP to examine whether more responsibilities cannot be assigned to the constables - who are after all an educated lot -so that they may find their jobs more satisfying.  Further,in consultation with senior police officers, I shall sanction all such welfare schemes as would offset the dis-advantages of police service, such as long and irregular hours of work, inability to devote sufficient time to parenting etc


I expect that all these measures would start producing results within a matter of months and that the prestige and credibility of the police will improve,so that I could turn my attention to making the police much more effective, with full cooperation of the public.

21.1.2014.

Since the number of village panchayats in the jurisdiction of a PS is rather large, it will not be practicable to form monitoring committees with one representative from each panchayat. So, it is suggested that the assembly of  people's representatives be asked to elect a committee of, say, 7 members, with an alternate for each.



(You may post your comments directly, there is no monitoring).

e-registration of FIR and other reports/applications/complaintss

Living in a village has given me a good idea of the difficulties faced by the rural population in making themselves heard by the officials who matter, be it registration of  FIR  or filing of an application for something which they are entitled to or a complaint  about non-receipt of some benefit or some service that they are entitled to. Therefore, e-registration of reports/applications/complaints can be a major step in empowerment of the common man, particularly those who live in the remote  areas.
A person who needs some official assistance or feels aggrieved on some issue needs, first of all, advice whether he is right to think what he thinks and secondly, if he is right, then, which departmentl to contact. Such advice is not easily available  and therefore, the first thing that needs to be done is to nominate and train some people who live in the villages as counsellors:  the 'Sarpanch' and the secretary of the village panchayat and the head master and other teachers  of the  schools in the vicinity would be the natural choices for this job. The second requirement is that all the departments of the govt ( or at least departments like revenue, police,forest, social-welfare, agriculture) should be covered by this scheme and each department should name a nodal officer, who should receive, directly from the applicant or his counsellor, the report/application/complaint, register it, acknowledge it , give it a registration number  and forward it to the appropriate official in his department for action. (In the case of Police, the nodal officer should be a law-officer attached to the S.P., and he should direct the SHO to register an FIR in every appropriate case). Thereafter, if there is any query, the nodal officer should find out the status from the official concerned (which would also serve  as a reminder to the official) and communicate it to the applicant. This way, it would be possible for a common man to make himself heard and to ascertain what action has been taken in his case, without making expensive and time-consuming trips to the district head-quarters and generally running around in circles.

Some Thoughts on Police Reforms

Police reforms are in the air again. While I welcome all the reform proposals, I am very sceptical whether the proposed reforms would bring much relief to the common man who expects the police to protect his life, property, and dignity against criminals of all kinds. This is because such protection can only be provided when the whole of the Criminal Justice Systems functions harmoniously and effectively. So, I am really in favour of holistic reform of the CJS which should ultimately enable the ordinarily talented but honest and diligent policeman to catch the criminals - mafia dons, rogue police officers, corrupt tycoons, unscrupulous politicians et al - and get them punished through the due process of law, but with a degree of certainty which would deter the criminals and dis-abuse the young minds of the notion that crime is cool.

Admittedly, the voices calling for a holistic reform of the CJS are few and faint and one cannot say when  such a reform would be undertaken. However, police officers should  be thinking how they can ensure that their problems are also taken into account, when the time comes.

I note that many police officers have had the ears of the Prime Minister/ Chief Minister, but they were unable to reform the system.So, the police were unable to come up to the the public expectation. Similarly, there have been many outstanding officers, who earned great respect from the public, but the force they commanded did not enjoy the same degree of public confidence, the changes introduced by them could not be sustained after their departure, and the public image of the police remained constant. I particularly note that whenever one body has suggested some measure which could enhance police effectiveness,  another body has raised doubts whether it would not make police even more oppressive, and because of the negative image of the police, the doubts have always prevailed.So, I conclude that the greatest stumbling block, the root-cause of the police problems, is the distrust of the police, which is enshrined in our procedural laws and etched in the  public psyche. Therefore,every police officer who wishes the police to do better, must do everything that he can to dispel this cloud of distrust and make the systemic problems of the police better understood in the public.

How to put this formula into practice is, of course, the million-dollar question

Who do we trust? Do we trust someone who is secretive and who gives vague and elusive answers when asked questions? Do we trust someone who has no time to look into our complaints and shows  no inclination to understand our difficulties? If an officer  hangs around the rich and the powerful and has no time for the ordinary people, can he be trusted to deal fairly with all the cases? Can we repose trust in an organisation which flip-flops on issues of ethical conduct?

I think the first thing that police must do is to embrace openness, in line with the NPC recommendation that " all police activities, to the extent possible, should be open except for four specific areas...." and in no case should they become a  party to cover-up; rather, they should emulate 'Deep Throat' in exposing abuse of power. I am also of the view that advisory committees should be formed for all police-stations and given the right to ask ( as a body, not otherwise ) any questions of the police as also to apprise them of the local concerns. The committees should also be given the right to put any matter (including refusal of information by the P.S.) before the higher authorities and the larger public. In other words, there should be a people's body at the P.S. level with authority to express  public concerns and to expose suspected malfeasance, though not the authority to interfere in P.S. work.

The issue of complaints against police is rather complex. Firstly,  we know that some people would go to any length to 'fix' an inconvenient officer; conversely, police officers can be very ingenious in covering-up their misdeeds. So, cursory inquiries are worse than useless and when an inquiry is undertaken, it must be pursued to its logical conclusion. Secondly, in most districts, the volume of complaints is so large that no officer can attend to them in addition to his normal duties. But there is  the apprehension that if he ignores a particular complaint and it later turns out to be significant, he could be in trouble. So, there is an effort to somehow dispose off' all the complaints, often leading to mistakes. In my view this difficulty should be formally recognised and the district officers should be trusted to make a wise selection of complaints which would be taken up by them for inquiries,leaving the rest to the courts (if the complainant so desires). Thirdly, since it is the duty of supervisory officers to keep their subordinates on the straight and narrow path, a complaint against a subordinate is, by implication, a complaint against the supervisors also and therefore,it can cause resentment among superior officers. If, however,the  supervisory officers could keep their resentment under check and view inquiries as a means to tightening their control over  subordinates,they can not only provide relief to many victims of police malfeasance, but also deter other rogues  and raise the morale of the right-doers within the police .Fourthly, for a variety of reasons, inquiries conducted by superior officers don't always inspire confidence in public.So,it is suggested that in all sensitive matters, inquiry officers should associate  persons of good repute with their inquiries, so that people are convinced of their bona fides.

The company one keeps makes or mars a man's reputation in any walk of life. Being in the eye of the public at all times, police officers should be doubly cautious as to how they cultivate their contacts in the underworld and watch out that they don't spend more time than  necessary with the rich and the  powerful.

 It is no secret that different officers have different degrees of tolerance for third-degree and bogus evidence and for political interference. This results in variations in standards which confuse both the subordinate officers and the public We have discussed the 'ethical' and the 'practical' aspects of these issues for long enough and we should now pay serious attention to the impact that the  inconsistency on these issues  has on police credibility. I think it is now  time  to take a clear stand on these issues and then stand firm in all circumstances.

9th May, 2013.

I think recent developments have fully vindicated the value of the NPC recommendation that all police activities should be open to the extent possible and also my suggestion that " in no case should they (police) become party to cover-up; rather they should emulate Deep Throat in exposing abuse of power." I sincerely hope that serving police officers will mull over the issue and finally, commit firmly to some code.

To my friends who are associated with politics, I would urge that they consider how exposure can be translated into rejection at the hustings. There is an imperative need to make the 'mango-people' understand  how these corrupt practices affect  their  interests and  leave them hanging on the crumbs thrown to them by way of electoral sops.

(You can  post your comments directly; there is no monitoring)