|
Reforming the Police in India
Swati Mehta
Consultant, Access to Justice Programme, CHRI
In a much welcomed
move, the Ministry of Home Affairs in India has set up a Committee
to draft a new Police Act to replace the archaic colonial Act
of 1861. That police in India need reforming is no longer a matter
of debate and all the stakeholders, including governments at the
state and national levels, have long accepted this. There have
been many initiatives since 1959 at the state level and since
1979 at the federal level, to introduce reforms through legislation,
however none of the recommendations of the various Committees
and Commissions that were set up to suggest reforms have been
implemented.
In 1996, some public-spirited individuals approached the Supreme Court of India about their lack of action and directed the government to implement the recommendations of the National Police Commission (1979-1981). In response, both the Court and the government set up different Committees to examine the relevance of the National Police Commission recommendations and suggest reforms. While these recommendations still await implementation, this new Police Act Drafting Committee, set up in September 2005, has been given six months to give its recommendations to the Government.
In order to meet this six month deadline, the Committee is receiving guidance from the reports of the previous Committees on police reforms, as well as from examples of international best practice. Having been co-opted as a civil society representative on the Committee, CHRI is encouraging the Committee to address the necessary elements of a democratic police service in its recommendations.
Our work with
the Committee is guided by the fact that democratic nations need
democratic policing, which entails an approach founded on principles
of equity and equality, accountability, transparency, participation,
respect for diversity, the accommodation of dissent, protection
of individual and group rights, and encouragement of human potential.
At the heart of police reforms lies accountability, both for the
performance of duties and the manner in which these duties are
performed. In a democracy, police must account to multiple stakeholders
at different levels from the parliament, executive and judiciary
to the public. This is of utmost importance as the Police Service
is the only agency that is authorised to use violence against
civilians.
Traditionally, the police are accountable to their departments and the judiciary for any abuse of power. However, more and more countries are realising the importance of augmenting internal systems with civilian oversight to ensure that police misconduct is investigated without bias. Even the most comprehensive internal disciplinary mechanisms, however, are unable to win complete public faith. Best practice indicates that creating civilian oversight mechanisms establishes the principle of accountability by reducing impediments and public reluctance to filing complaints. As an independent source of information about police misconduct, it can also alert police administrators to the steps they should take to curb abuse.
When reviewing the 1861 Act,
CHRI is urging that the Committee not only ensure that the police
account for their misconduct but also perform their duties diligently,
efficiently and effectively. When evaluating police performance
for a given period, certain indicators must be devised against
which performance can be judged. Best practice shows that these
indicators should not only relate to crime prevention or detection,
but should also gauge public satisfaction with policing services.
Furthermore, they must determine whether the resources available
to police are utilised in the manner that the legislature intended,
and used in a way that serves the public interest. It is important
to review these indicators periodically to ensure that they are
in line with the tasks that the police actually perform. It is
equally important that each member of the police hierarchy is
aware of the indicators for a given period so that everyone down
the line is working towards achieving those performance objectives.
In order to be held
responsible for their performance and their conduct, police must
be assured a fair amount of independence in their functioning.
As an agency of the state, the police are responsible to the executive
and must be guided by it, however the political guidance can only
be in terms of policy and broad aims. It cannot be used to promote
partisan interests or for corrupt and illegitimate ends. The difference
between appropriate political direction and illegitimate political
interference, though very fine, is very significant in law and
in practice. It is important to clearly delineate the roles and
responsibilities of the political executive and the police to
minimise illegal interference with the functioning of the police
and to ensure accountability. Transparent appointment procedures
and security of tenure for the chief of police goes a long way
in monitoring political manipulations of the police. Requiring
public participation in framing policy also inhibits partisan
impositions on policing.
Democratic policing
requires public inputs and public participation. Known by different
names like community policing, sector policing or participatory
policing, public participation broadly signifies a collaboration
between the police and the community to identify and solve community
problems. It usually entails public inputs into all police processes
from preparation of policing plans and budgets, to providing all
crime related information (preventive and investigative in nature).
A successful community-policing programme requires traditionally
centralised police organisations to shift decision-making and
responsibility downward, and recognise that it is street-level
officers who have to make the new community policing approach
work. The police and public have to interact as equals and with
a sense of shared values. In diverse societies with unequal power
relations, community policing must engage with diverse groups
so that it is not hijacked by dominant groups to the detriment
of the marginalised and vulnerable.
Police reforms involve
many other complex issues of training, recruitment, security of
tenure, and welfare measures. The Police Act Drafting Committee
when considering these issues must involve the public. At present,
there is little awareness of the existence of the Committee, let
alone its work. It will not be enough to have a few public consultations.
Public participation at all levels of deliberations is crucial.
Apart from inviting a few civil society organisations and individuals
to suggest changes, the Committee could consider inviting public
comments on a variety of issues. If the recommendations of this
Committee are to be implemented, then it is imperative that there
is a broad domestic constituency that supports and understands
police accountability and policing issues. Without informed public
debate and demand, there will never be political will to change
the status quo that continues to serve the interests of the political
elite.
Canadian
Muslims and Jews Find Common Ground on Conflicting Rights
-
Murray Burt
Ex-President, Commonwealth Journalists Association and member
of CHRIs International Advisory Committee
Ontario,
Canada’s largest province, is taking a hard look at faith-based
arbitration and its impact on the rights of women as protests
broke out about the Muslim community’s application of Sharia
law to marriage and property disputes being contrary to
Canadian human rights legislation.1 It is argued that applying
faith law to civil settlements undermines women’s rights.
In response, the provincial government appointed former
Attorney General of the Province, Ms Marion Boyd, to conduct
an inquiry and prepare a report. Her finding was that there
is no evidence that women are discriminated against in their
dealings with Muslim arbitrators, leading her to recommend
that the Muslim practice in Ontario remain with certain
safeguards in place.
The
Government initially embraced this finding, but an outpouring
of hostility from social activists and sectors of the Christian
church, forced a flip-flop. As a result, the Government
proposed Bill 27, which outlines that arbitration dealing
with family matters excludes application of faith-based
law. Having appeased some, the criticism of uneven-handedness
was raised as Jewish tribunals on family matters have been
entrenched since 1889 and Catholics have enjoyed similar
measures of tolerance. The legislature’s response was to
apply the prohibition of the Bill to all faith-based tribunals.
This added Jewish outrage to the mix. Both Jews and Muslims
said the Government was infringing on religious freedom.
The next move in Canada, regarding the passage of Bill 27,
is up to the legislators in Ontario.
|
|
|
CHRI
Newsletter, Spring 2006
|
Editors: Mary
Rendell &
Clare
Doube , CHRI;
Layout: Print: Chenthil
Paramasivam , Web Developer:
Swayam Mohanty,
CHRI.
Acknowledgement: Many thanks to all contributors
Copyright
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
www.humanrightsinitiative.org
Published
by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, B-117, 1st Floor, Sarvodaya
Enclave, New Delhi - 110017, India
Tel: +91-11-26850523, 26864678; Fax: +91-11-26864688; Email: chriall@nda.vsnl.net.in
The
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) is an independent international
NGO mandated to ensure the practical realisation of human rights
in the Commonwealth.
|
|