c.

Regarding the third term of reference, namely, to bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems of the respondents in view of any specific
conditions, the Committee reported some such problems which came to its notice, in its Second Report submitted to the Supreme Court, dated
02.05.2009.AmoredetailedaccountofsuchproblemsashighlightedbytheStates,isgiveninPartFourofthisreport.
d. As for the fourth term of reference, namely, to examine the new legislations to see whether they are in compliance with the Directives, in the
Committees view the said term is one of reporting function, particularly in view of the following observation of the Supreme Court in the main
judgment in Prakash Singh case:The decision in Vineet Narains case notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be
observedwereissuedintheabsenceoflegislationandimplementedtillthelegislaturespassedappropriatelegislations.TheCommitteefoundthatas
manyas12Stateshadpassednewpolicelegislations.Itexaminedallthoselegislations.TheassessmentmadebytheCommitteeonthesenewpolice
legislationspassedbythose12StatesisincludedinAnnexureIIofthisreport.
e. Regarding the fifth term of reference, i.e., to apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any State, the Committees
findingsaredetailedinPartFiveofthisreport.

Part IV
States Stated Difficulties in Implementation of Directives
17. The Committee would now highlight the following areas of concern/ difficulties generic to most of the States, as pointed out by most of the state
governments.TheCommitteesownassessmentoneachoftheseissuesisalsomentionedalongside:
a. Implementation of the Directive to involve UPSC in the empanelment process (for the post of DGP) is beyond the scope and authority of the state
governments.TheCommitteehasalreadyreportedthismattertotheSupremeCourtinitssecondinterimreport.The Committee is since given to
understand that this issue has now become a subject matter of an interlocutory application pending before the Supreme Court in the main Writ
Petition.
b. RegardingthedirectiontoprovideaminimumtenureoftwoyearstoDGP,irrespectiveofthedateofsuperannuation,thestategovernmentsprojected
theirinabilityinitsimplementationonthegroundthatthesaidsubjectbelongstothedomainoftheAllIndiaServiceRules,whichareframedbythe
UnionGovernment.TheSupremeCourtmayexaminethisissue.
c. ThemanagementofIPSCadreinsomeofthesmallStates,likeGoa,ArunachalPradeshandMizoram,isadministeredthroughaJointCadreAuthority
undertheUnionHomeMinistry.Thus,thestategovernmentinsuchStatescannot,ontheirown,fullycomplywiththeDirectivetoaccordminimum
tenuretotheofficers(thosebelongingtoIPS)andintheselectionofDGP.
d. PracticaldifficultieswereexpressedbysomeofthestatesofsmallersizeforestablishingseparatedistrictlevelPoliceComplaintsAuthorities,referredto
inDirectiveNo.6inthemainjudgment.Accordingtothosestates,asingleAuthorityatthestatelevelwouldbegoodenoughforalldistrictsalso.The
Committeesviewisthatlookingatitfromthegovernmentalangle,thisdifficultymaylookgenuineinsomecases.Butpeoplelivingindistantregions
intheState,farawayfromthestatecapital,mayfinditdifficulttovoicetheirgrievancesbyundertakingajourneytosuchcapitals.
e. Some States, particularly Uttar Pradesh, put forward the view that the existing multiplicity of authorities for Police accountability (such as National
HumanRightsCommission,StateHumanRightsCommission,SC/STCommission,WomensCommissionandMinoritiesCommissionetc.)obviatesthe
necessityofhavingonemoreseparatemechanismforpoliceaccountability,intheformofPoliceComplaintsAuthority,envisagedinDirectiveNo.6.
Thecivilsocietyrepresentatives,ontheotherhand,expressedtheviewthatallthosemultipleauthoritiesdidnothavebindingpowersandalsothat
there was need to have a body solely focusing on police misconduct, as envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. It is for the Supreme Court to
considerwhetheranyfurtherclarificationisneededinthematter.
f. AsforDirectiveNo.1(establishmentofStateSecurityCommissionSSC),theCommittee,initssecondreport,hasalreadysoughtclarificationofthe
HonbleCourtonthevariationsinthecompositionoftheCommission,betweentherecommendationsoftheSoliSorabjeeCommitteeandthetextin
theHonbleSupremeCourtsjudgment,specificallyontheissueofinclusionofaretiredHighCourtJudgeintheStatePoliceBoard/StateSecurity
Commission and so also the mention of DGP being as exofficio Secretary and not Member Secretary of the State Police Board / State Security
Commission.
g. Further,theCommitteefoundthatacommonSSChasbeensetupforallthesevenUnionTerritoriesincludingDelhi,withtheUnionHomeSecretary
asitsChairman.TheCommitteewouldurgetheSupremeCourttoclarifywhetheraseparateSSCisrequiredforeachUnionTerritory.

Part V
Findings and Conclusions
18. Insofar as the implementation of the six specific Directives of the Supreme Court is concerned, the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that
practicallynoStatehasfullycompliedwiththoseDirectivessofar,inletterandspirit,despitethelapseofalmostfouryearssincethedateoftheoriginal
judgment.IntheStates,wherenewpolicelegislationshavenotbeenenacted,thedirectionsarepurportedtohavebeencompliedwithbyissuingexecutive
ordersbutthecontentsofsuchexecutiveordersclearlyreflectdilution,invaryingdegrees,ofthespirit,ifnottheletter,oftheCourtdirectives.
19.ThisisreflectedbyAnnexureIwhichgivesasnapshotoftheactuallevelsofcomplianceinrespectofeachoftheSupremeCourtdirectives,bytheStates
whichhaveadoptedthemechanismofissuingexecutiveorders.AnnexureII,whichcontainstheCommitteesassessmentoftherelevantprovisionsofthe
newpolicelegislationsenactedby12States,reflectsthesamestory.
20. In the executive orders issued by many States as well as in the new police legislations passed by some States, the composition of the State Security
Commission(DirectiveNo.1)reflectsdeviationbywayofexclusionofeithertheLeaderoftheOppositionorthejudicialelementorboth.Eveninthematter
oftheratiobetweentheofficialandnonofficialmembers,wenoticedthenumericalmajorityinmanycasesbeingkeptinfavourofofficialsovernonofficials.
21.RegardingtheselectionofDGP(DirectiveNo.2),notwithstandingtheaforementioneddifficultyininvolvingtheUPSCforempanelmentofofficers,most
oftheStateshavebeenstickingtotheearlierexistingprocedureofselection,withoutevenlayingdownanymeritbased,transparentcriteriaforthesame.As
forthetenureofDGP,mostStateshavesidesteppedthecoreoftheSupremeCourtdirective.
22.TheCommitteeobservedthattherewasnearuniformityamongalltheStatesinnotfollowingDirectiveNo.3,whichrelatestoprovisionforafixedtenure
forcertaincategoriesofpoliceofficers,inthemannerenvisagedbytheSupremeCourt.
23.AsforDirectiveNo.4(separationofinvestigationfromlaw&order),provisionhas,albeit,beenmadeintheexecutiveorders,inmostoftheStates,but
thoseremainonlyonpapersofar.Noconcretestepsseemtohavebeentakentoimplementthedirectiveonthegroundlevel.Indeed,suchseparationwould
involve some augmentation of police manpower and this has been projected as a difficulty by some state governments. Some others have, on the other
hand,takenstepstosanctionadditionalmanpowerandpromisedthattheseparationwouldbeeffectivelyimplementedoncethenewmanpowerisinplace

afterrecruitmentandtraining.Fordetails,seeAnnexuresI&II.
24.ThePoliceEstablishmentBoards(DirectiveNo.5)havebeencreatedinmostoftheStatesbuttheireffectivenesshasbeenpersistentlyquestionedbythe
civilsocietygroupsintheirrepresentationsmadebeforetheCommittee.ThegroundsituationoftransfersinthefourStateswheresamplechecksweremade
bytheCommittee(UP,Maharashtra,KarnatakaandWestBengal)wasfoundtobesuggestiveofuncertaintyoftenuresinthetransfersandpostingsofpolice
officers(Fordetails,seeAnnexuresIII,IV&V).
25.ThePoliceComplaintsAuthorities(DirectiveNo.6)havenotbeencreatedinmostoftheStatessofar(fordetailsseeAnnexureI).Civilsocietygroups
haverepresentedthatevenintheStateswhichhaveclaimedcompliancetothisdirective,thesaidAuthoritieshaveyettobeputinplaceatthegroundlevel.
26.Further,theCommitteehasnoticedthatsomeStateGovernments(forexample,Tamilnadu)haveintroducedlegislativeBills,purportedlyincomplianceof
theSupremeCourtsdirectives,butwhiletheBillshaveyettobepassedbytheirLegislatures,intheexecutiveordersissuedbytheStateGovernmentsinthe
interregnum, the provisions of even the proposed Bills have been diluted. Pending passage of the Bills by the Legislature, the State Governments may be
askedbytheSupremeCourttomodifysuchexecutiveorderstobringthesameinaccordancewiththeirownproposedBills,withoutfurtherdelay.
27.Forcheckingofgroundrealitiesofimplementationofthedirectives,theCommittee,asstatedearlier,tookupthetaskinrespectoffourStateslocatedin
four different geographical zones. The reports on this sample verification are placed in Annexure III (UP and Maharashtra), Annexure IV (Karnataka), and
AnnexureV(WestBengal).ItcanbeseenfromtheseAnnexuresthatthelevelofcomplianceoftheSupremeCourtdirectivesintheseStatesisrangingfrom
totalnoncompliancetopartialormarginalcompliancetomerepaperimplementation.TheSupremeCourt,tobeginwith,may,therefore,initiateactionas
deemedappropriate,againsttheseStates.
28.AsfortheremainingStates,itisfortheSupremeCourttodecideonthecourseandmodalitiesofsuchverification,toassesstheexactlevelofcompliance
ofthedirectivesbythem,beforedecidingontheactiontobetakeninrespectofthem.
29. In the end, the Committee, while reiterating its earlier observation about the indifferent response of most of the State Governments, in spite of the
lettersandremindersaddressedtotheChiefMinisterspersonallybytheChairman,wouldliketoexpressitsdismayoverthetotalindifferencetotheissueof
reformsinthefunctioningofPolicebeingexhibitedbytheStates.
30.Properfunctioningofpoliceforcesiscrucialfortheruleoflawtoprevailinanysociety.ItisalsoacriticalrequisiteforensuringtheFundamentalRightsof
thepeopleenshrinedandguaranteedunderourConstitution.TheindifferenceoftheStateGovernmentstotheissueofpolicereformsandnoncomplianceof
theDirectivesoftheSupremeCourtinthisregard,despitethetenaciouseffortsmadebytheCommitteewithintheboundariesofitslimitedmandate,haveto
beviewedinthatperspective.
(JusticeK.T.Thomas)
Chairman
(KamalKumar)

(DharmendraSharma)

Member

Member

Justice Verma Committee

JusticeJ.S.VermaCommittee,whichwasconstitutedinthewakeofthebrutalgangrapeinDelhionDecember16,2012,submittedacomprehensivereport
onAmendmentstoCriminalLaw.TheCommitteeregrettedthattheSupremeCourtsjudgmentof2006inPrakashSinghscasegivingcertaindirectionsfor
theautonomyandimprovingthequalityofthepoliceforceremaintobeimplementedbyallthegovernmentsandemphasizedthatactioninthisbehalf
does not brook any further delay. In Chapter XII of the Report, which deals exclusively with Police Reforms, the Committee expressed the view that
ensuring full compliance with this judgment across all of India is of utmost priority to national welfare including the welfare of women and children and
towards the weaker sections of the community, and urged all states to fully comply with all six Supreme Court directives in order to tackle systemic
problemsinpolicingwhichexisttoday.Itfurthermadethefollowingobservations:
WebelievethatiftheSupremeCourtsdirectionsinPrakashSinghareimplemented,therewillbeacrucialmodernizationofthepolicetobeservice
orientedforthecitizenryinamannerwhichisefficient,scientific,andconsistentwithhumandignity.
Home|AboutUs|HistoryofPoliceReforms|Judgments|Committees
Copyright2012.AllRightsReserved.

StatesReportCard|Articles|Sacrifices|Progress