Introduction:-

The term ‘Police’ broadly connotes the purposeful maintenance of public order and
protection of persons and property. A popular belief is that the Indian Police System is a creation
of the British rule in India but a study of the ancient India history shows the origin and
development of the law enforcement institutions since the Vedic period.1

A welfare state is to be a police state only protection of law and order is the main
function of the state. This function is carried out with the help of police. This is regarded as a
sovereign function even today. This function by the state is considered as the most important and
fundamental. The state has to implement many measures for the benefit and welfare of the
people. The police in a democratic polity perform multiple and complex tasks towards this
objective, the police have to be an effective organisation for the prevention, detection and
investigation of crime, maintenance of law and order, protection of lives, liberties, and honour
and possessions of the people, to bring offenders to justice and to render honest and impartial
service of the people.2

In a well-ordered democracy and welfare state the police is supposed to be a disciplined

force trained to uphold the law and enforced democratic institution to function on constitution
lines. In India the British colonial administration introduced a police system primarily to protect
and defined the establishment. Conceived and structured as a staunch ally and the establishment
spawned by it, the police system established by the act of 1861 matured in time into a veritable
colonial law-and-order force. A sort of police raj did surely take shaped by 1947, where the
police was a major player in the ordering of rural and urban society, in the suppression of
political opposition and in consolidation of state control. Since independence the need for
thorough reform has been felt and urged not only by civil society and academic observers but by
the government itself. Earlier initiatives like the national Police Commission in 1979, the Vohra
Commission 1993, the Ribeiro committee 1998, the Padmanbhaiah Committee 2000 and the
Human Right Commission have advocated this reform.3

1
Fadia & Fadia (2010), Indian Administration, Page 918
2
Bakshi P.M. (2006), “Constitution of India”, Universal Law Publishing, Delhi
3
Ibid

1
Establishment Of Police in India :-4

Ancient India :-

The police as a department had become a well-established administrative institution

during the Mauryan Empire.

With the advent of the Mughals, policing became a subsidiary aspect of the king’s
strategic, military and revenue requirements. The age-old community based policing was largely
replaced by people with official patronage.

Colonial legacy :-

The Police as an organised institution in this country came into existence with the Police
Act of 1861. This legislation was passed in the wake of the Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, when
the Indian soldiers in the colonial army revolted against their British commanders. The mutiny
later developed into a rebellion against British rule in India. Though the revolt was quelled
speedily and successfully, it did jolt the British into taking many steps to consolidate their rule in
India, including the establishment of an authoritarian police force to support the colonial
government. The British realised that to perpetuate their rule in this country, they must have a
police force that was totally subservient to the executive. The executive must exercise complete
and unquestioning control over the police force. Section 3 of the 1861 Police Act vested the
superintendence of the state police forces in the state governments. The same Act introduced a
system of dual control at the district level. It put the police forces under the command of the
District Superintendents of Police, but subject to the general control and directions of the District
Magistrates. This was done deliberately because the functioning of the District Magistrate as the
chief officer of the district was considered essential for the maintenance of British rule in India.
Under the system of police governance established by the 1861 Act, the police forces in India
were unaccountable to anyone except their own hierarchy and the colonial political and
administrative executive.

4
Gurbax Singh, (2008), “Law Relating to Protection of Human Rights and Human Values”, Vinod Publications (P)
Ltd., Delhi.

2
 Making the police accountable to the community or other democratic or local indigenous
institutions did not fit into the British colonial model of control. The British structured the
organisation in a way so that the senior positions in the force would be occupied by them and the
junior slots would be kept for natives. Section 7 of the Police Act of 1861 uses the words inferior
officers for those occupying the lower ranks in the police. Even when the senior posts were
Indianised in due course. Family background always weighed heavy in picking candidates for
senior vacancies. The natives were not to be trusted. This distrust is reflected in the provisions of
law also. For example, under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the statement of a
witness recorded by the police during investigation is not to be signed by the person making the
statement and it cannot be used during trial for any purpose other than that of contradicting the
witness if he differs from it. Similarly, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that
confessions recorded by a police officer shall not be admissible in evidence.

The police was raised on a militaristic and authoritarian pattern. There was tremendous
emphasis on maintenance of a type of discipline, which bordered on regimentation, requiring the
lower ranks to obey orders blindly. The system did not require the constabulary to put on their
thinking caps while performing their duties. They in fact were not required to have any. That is
why recruitment to constabulary stressed on the requirements of brawn and not brain. The taller
and heftier the recruit, the better. In his presence, nobody should raise questions or demand
answers. All the above factors combined to produce a system, which situated the bulk of the
police force at a distance from the community.

Understandably, the 1861 Act failed to produce an efficient, professional and an accountable
police force in the country. This was realised by the colonial rulers themselves when the Indian
Police Commission appointed in July, 1902 under the chairmanship of Sir A.H.L. Fraser
criticized the police force in all dimensions. The Commission made many recommendations but
either failed to recognise or conveniently ignored the fact that most of the ills afflicting the
organistion could be ascribed to the system established by the Police Act of 1861 and the
philosophy of policing that was prescribed. The Commission, despite themselves unearthing
massive evidence to the contrary, concluded that the system introduced in 1861 was on the whole
a wise and efficient system.

3
Post Independence Developments:-5

The advent of Independence changed the political system, but the police system remained
more or less unaltered. The Police Act of 1861 continued to govern it. Its managerial philosophy,
value system and ethos remained what they were. The powers granted to politicians and
bureaucrats to exercise control and superintendence over the police remained the same. They
were 4 a ruler or establishment supportive police force, considerably distant from the community
and they continued to remain so.

Though the country has been independent for more than 67 years, till now, no
government, central or state, has taken the initiative to replace the Police Act of 1861 with new
legislation, which would be in tune with requirements of democratic policing. It is not as if no
new legislation has been passed. Some state governments have enacted new legislation since
Independence to govern the functioning of their police forces. For instance, the Police Forces in
Maharashtra and Gujarat are governed by the Bombay Police Act of 1951, in Kerala by the
Kerala Police Act of 1960, in Karnataka by the Karnataka Police Act of 1963, in Delhi by the
Delhi Police Act of 1978. Some State Governments have also framed separate legislation to
regulate the working of their State Armed Police Forces. The enactment of these laws after
Independence has not brought about any significant improvement in the organisational structure,
performance or behaviour of the Police Forces. The reason - the new enactments were patterned
on the model of the old 1861 legislation. They are as silent and remiss about the new
requirements of democratic policing as the colonial legislation was. In fact, some of these state
Acts, like the Bombay Police Act, 1952 further tightened the executive control over the police
force, without introducing any safeguards to prevent the misuse of police force for partisan
purposes and without incorporating effective mechanisms to ensure police accountability. The
result was there for all to see during the communal riots in Gujarat in 2002.

5
Gurbax Singh, (2008), “Law Relating to Protection of Human Rights and Human Values”, Vinod Publications (P)
Ltd., Delhi.

4
Police during the Emergency :-6

For a couple of decades after Independence, it did not matter much, as the standards of
leadership, in both politics as well as police, were quite good. Gradually, however, the standards
started declining, with politics becoming increasingly contentious and criminalised, leading to a
perceptible decline in the quality of control exercised over the police and increasing misuse of
the organisation by people in positions of power for partisan interests. Almost all the State Police
Commissions, the National Police Commission and other expert bodies, which inquired into the
problems of the police in India, found overwhelming evidence of misuse of the police by
politicians for narrow selfish ends. This was particularly seen during the period of Emergency
(1975 & 1977) when the police committed atrocities on a wide scale. The brazen manner in
which the police were misused during this period prompted the government that came to power
at the center after the Emergency to appoint the Shah Commission of Inquiry. The Shah
Commission unearthed considerable evidence to prove that during the period of Emergency,
some police officers behaved as though they were not accountable at all to any public authority.
In its report, the Shah Commission told the government: employing the police to the advantage
of any political party is a sure source of subverting the rule of law, and asked the central
government to take measures to insulate the police from illegitimate political and executive
interference.

6
Gurbax Singh, (2008), “Law Relating to Protection of Human Rights and Human Values”, Vinod Publications (P)
Ltd., Delhi.

5
National Police Commission :-7

In response, the Government of India appointed the National Police Commission (NPC).
The NPC was asked to make a comprehensive review of the police system, having regard to the
far- reaching changes that had taken place in the country after the enactment of the Indian Police
Act of 1861, the report of the last Police Commission of 1902 and particularly those changes
which had taken place since Independence. The NPC had fairly wide and comprehensive terms
of reference, including a fresh examination of the role and performance of the police, both as a
law enforcement agency and as an institution to protect the rights of citizens enshrined in the
Constitution. One of its most important terms of reference required it to recommend measures
and institutional arrangements to prevent misuse of powers by the police and misuse of the
police by politicians or other pressure groups. During the period between 1979 and 1981, the
NPC produced eight reports. Some major recommendations centering around the problem of
insulating the police from illegitimate political and bureaucratic interference included:

 Setting up of a Security Commission in each state to see that the government exercises its
superintendence over the police in an open manner within the framework of law.
 Prescribing a selection procedure that would ensure the appointment of the best officers
to head the state police force.
 Giving these officers a fixed minimum tenure so as to reduce their vulnerability.
 Amending rules so that arbitrary transfers of police officers done without authority would
become null and void.
 Replacing the Police Act of 1861 with a new Police Act.

None of the above recommendations of the NPC has been implemented. These recommendations
perturbed the entrenched elite at the prospect of losing control over an organization, which they
have been misusing for so long. Politicians and bureaucrats have developed a great vested
interest in retaining control and superintendence over the police organization and in letting the
status quo continue.

7
Bureau of Police Research and development : http://bprd.nic.in/searchdetail.asp?lid=407

6
Police Act Vis-à-vis Human rights :-8

The concept of human rights has come the declaration of American independence in
1776.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted on 10th December,1948.
Human Rights in India Related issues were created by social and religious movements in India
during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The protection and preservation of Human Rights from the very basis of the human
civilization. These rights are inherent to every individual and for this reason it is called Human
Rights, Human Rights are very much essential for a good and qualitative human survival liberty
of the individual and respect for his dignity. These principles have been enshrined in the
fundamental rights. The constitution of India has made provision for a specific fundamental
rights that a citizen cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself the Indian Police act,
under which the entire police organization in India derives its legitimacy and the policemen their
powers of function, prohibits unwarranted personal violence by police officers to any person in
police custody.

Maintaining social order is such a fundamental police function, and social order is so
fundamental to the realization of human rights that the protection of human rights can be seen, in
itself, as a police function. The very specific ways in which police protect particular human
rights give further support, if it were needed, to the notion that the protection of human rights is a
police function. Indeed, it is argued that the protection of human rights should stand alongside
the prevention and detection of crime; the preservation of social order; and the provision of
assistance in emergencies as one of the primary functions of policing.

In addition to protecting human rights as one of their primary functions, police are also
required to respect human rights. That is to say, when they are exercising their powers (For
example: to use force, to deprive people of their liberty, or to carry out search or surveillance
activities) police must obey the laws designed to secure human rights. Protection of and respect
for human rights are so integral to policing that the removal of any tension between policing and
human rights that exists in practice, the creation of a human rights culture within police agencies,
is one of the most pressing tasks presently facing police leaders.

8
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38854/14/14_chapter_5.pdf

7
 The relationship between human rights and policing should be characterised by these
three concepts - protection, respect and entitlement. However, the protection of human rights by
policing is a very positive aspect of the relationship and this need and deserves further
consideration.

Custodial violence is anathema in any civilized society. It is ironic to see that whereas the
state is the guarantor and protector of human rights, most of the cases are registered against the
state itself, which concern the violence of human rights. The image of the police in public mind
is not much different from that in the British period, when it was used to suppress the people
with an iron hand. People still perceive the police as brutal, corrupt and inefficient. In fact the
police have shown all the three faces, i.e., as a savior, a victim and an abusing force, in the
domain of human rights violations in our country. The observance of human rights by the police
has already become mandatory by law and they have no choice in the matter. Any violence will
invite legal action and punishment. This issue basically involves a question of values and ethics.

There are frequent instances where the police, who are entrusted with the duty to enforce
law and order, are violating the human rights.9 It is an admitted fact that when the police
interrogate suspects in a crime, they employ third-degree methods. It includes torture either by
not recording the arrest or deprivation of liberty in the guise of a prolonged interrogation.
Experience shows that during the course of investigation, worst violations of human rights take
place.10 Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate power to arrest a criminal, to
interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law
does not permit use of third degree methods and torture of accused in custody during
interrogation and investigation of the crime.11

9
Jagannath Mohanty, "Bases and Sources of Human Rights", Human Rights Education (2000), p. 15
10
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, with Ashok K. Joshi v. State ofU.P., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 610, p. 617
11
Ibid p. 621

8
 Most of the violations of human rights take place in the management of law and order, by
the police. In India, the history of human rights violations in police custody can be traced to
British period. Even after 67 years of independence, in a democratic country like India, the
police remains virtually a terror to the people and almost absolutely unaccountable for the
violations of human rights of people in their custody. Though custodial torture, custodial deaths
and other forms of human rights violations in police custody are very common today and the
people are being fed up with hearing and talking of such custodial abuses, no static steps have
been taken so far for a permanent solution.12

Since conviction rate is considered as the yardstick to measure the ability of an

investigating police officer, every police officer would try to accomplish the maximum
conviction rate to his credit by hook or crook. This will definitely help to increase the rate of
police torture. It is really pathetic that the successive governments have persistently refused to
investigate the abuses reported in newspapers. Nowadays custodial violence has become a part of
the police culture and the incidence of custodial deaths is quite common. Though the academic
world and judiciary have become conscious of the need of a study of the causes of human rights
violations in police custody, its importation into the realm of Human Rights, on any systematic
scale, is not yet attempted. In the field of Human Rights, a deep study of the causes of human
rights violations in police custody from the legal standpoint has so far received little attention.

There exist a number of violations of human rights in police lockups and surely there is
the public dissatisfaction with the police functioning. Police officers know well what is going on
in police stations and yet they, allow them. Among the violations the most common forms are
illegal detention, prolonged detention, manipulation of records of detention, custodial torture,
custodial death, custodial suicide, custodial rape, denial of food, medical care and clothing, and
denial of access to counsel and denial of interaction with dear and near ones.13

12
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569, p. 711.
13
S. Subramanian, Human Rights: International Challenges Vol. 1(1997), p. 235.

9
 The NHRC has been doing commendable work in continuously encouraging the police
forces of various states, through their high ranking officers, in spreading human rights education.
NHRC favour of depoliticisation of the higher ranks of the police .It has suggested that frequent
transfers of the state police chief should be discouraged, police should be made less
authoritarian, yet more accountable, and the investigated branch should be separated from the
law and order handling, and thus it should be insulted extraneous pressures.14

Supreme Court has played a vital role in safeguarding citizens from Police atrocities and
has given various landmark Judgements :

DK Basu Case (1997) - Information to be given to family of the person arrested

Sunil Batra Case (1978) - Right against Solitary Confinement

Charles Gurumukh Sobhraj Case (1978) - Right against Bar Fetters

Prem Shanker Shukla Case (1980) - Right against Handcuffing

Sheela Barse Case (1983) - Right against Custodial Violence

Pt. Parmanand Katara Case (1984) - Right to Doctor’s Assistance

The police definitely needs to change its image, and human rights education can play a
meaningful role in remodeling the image of the police.

14
Pandey J.N. (2004), “Constitutional Law of India”, Central Law Agency.

10
Conclusion :-

Police personnel should work in collaboration with other stakeholders such as lawyers,
human rights activists and the nongovernmental organizations working in the field of human
rights and ensure that there is no human rights violation. Despite the rhetoric on rule of law,
constitutional provisions, the existence of human rights laws and institutions such as the NHRC,
the fact remains that at bottom the Indian police are a government department functioning under
government orders with hardly any meaningful autonomy, an issue that needs serious analysis.

The focus on crime and investigation detracts attention from the fact that the Indian
police organization, which was originally set up to put down by brute force political resistance to
British rule; that structure has not only been retained without change in the post-colonial period,
but has been vastly strengthened to put down political resistance.

Most of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code
possess a narrow focus on security of state and public order at the cost of human rights
protection and service provision, which needs to be removed along with similar reform of the
Police Act of 1861. The issues of decentralisation, democratisation and empowerment of
panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) for discharging police functions need to be addressed.

The sufferings of large sections of ordinary people in Jammu & Kashmir, the north-
eastern states and the Central Tribal Belt including women and children, under the adverse
impact of the imposition of ‘lawless laws’ such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act
affecting human dignity needs addressing.

Intelligence systems oriented to security of the state and public order do not respect
human rights concerns and priorities and must be addressed.

The structural reform of the Indian police on ‘Public Order’ by the Second
Administrative Reforms Commission needs attention.

The role of the two All India Services, the IAS and the IPS, in over-all law and order
management needs reconsideration

11