Police Reforms: India
Police Reforms: Too Important to Neglect, Too Urgent to Delay

Transfer of Mumbai Police Chief

G.P. Joshi

Even in a country where one is used to seeing police officers being shunted around to different assignments quite frequently and arbitrarily, the transfer of Dr. P.S. Pasricha, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai bewildered the police as well as the public.

Dr. Pasricha, who belongs to the 1970 batch of the IPS, was appointed as the Commissioner of Police on November 19, last year when the then police commissioner Mr Sharma was removed for his alleged involvement in the Telgi case. The image of the Mumbai police had fallen to an all time low. The system needed cleansing; the morale of the force had to be uplifted; and public confidence had to be gained. It was presumed that these important considerations guided the selection of Dr. Pasricha to the post, particularly when he was picked up above officers senior to him and present in the state at that time.

Why was Dr. Pasricha removed when he had served in the post for only 77 days? The government's answer is that he had earned his promotion to the rank of DGP and could not be retained in a lower post. The argument does not wash well for two reasons. One, the government must have known on November 19, 2003 that Dr. Pasricha was due for promotion to the rank of DGP. Why then did they appoint him to a lower post? Secondly, the post of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai was upgraded by the government so many times in the past to accommodate senior officers. Why couldn't they do it this time too? Mr Patil, the state home minister, says that he went strictly by the rule- book. Did he?

By transferring Dr. Pasricha, the Government of Maharastra violated two important clauses of an Ordinance promulgated by them as recently as January 16, 2004. This piece of legislation, which prescribes a fair transfer and tenure policy for government servants of all ranks, is known as the "Maharastra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Ordinance, 2004." Two clauses of this Ordinance clearly dishonoured by the government in Dr. Pasricha's case are clause 3 (1), according to which the normal tenure for an All India Service officer in a post is three years and clause 4 (1), which debars the transfer of any officer before he has completed his tenure of posting. There are of course always provisions in such laws that allow the government to circumvent the prescribed policy in special cases and it is pretty certain that the government must have taken recourse to these provisions to cover up the dishonest decision.

The standards of governance in this country have fallen so low that governments show no hesitation in violating their own policies shamelessly. Like the new policy of Maharastra Government, the UP Government had formulated a transfer policy in April 1997, according to which only 15% of officers of respective cadres would be transferred in a year. Within six months of formulating this policy, at least 50 % of officers in the IAS, IPS and PCS cadres had been transferred. In 48 of 76 districts, District Magistrates were changed and in 55 districts, Superintendents of Police were transferred. This was despite the fact that the UP Government had given an undertaking to the High Court in April 1997 that a comprehensive transfer policy would be framed and implemented.

The transfer of Dr. Pasricha is another instance in the long list of arbitrary transfers of police officers that the politicians in this country have been doing with impunity for so long. As mentioned by the National Police Commission (NPC) in August 1979, transfer and suspension are two weapons frequently used by the politician to bend the police officers down to his will. Even at that time when the situation was much better than what it is now, the NPC was appalled by the fact that "transfers were too frequent, ad hoc and arbitrary in nature, and were mostly ordered as a means of punishment and harassment."

More recently, the Department of Personnel of the Union Government revealed that in several districts of UP and Bihar, DMs and SPs were often transferred within three to four months of assuming office. Between March 21 and September 7, 1997, the then CM Mayawati transferred as many as 467 IAS, 380 IPS and 300 Provincial Civil Service officers.

The politicians use their power to transfer as an instrument to misuse the police organisation and its officers for their partisan and corrupt purposes, but this has very serious and damaging effects on the health of the force. Frequent and arbitrary transfers obstruct the growth of the police organisation on professional lines. Firstly, they introduce an element of instability in the police organisation. Secondly, they invariably result in putting the right man at the wrong place and what is worse the wrong man at the right place. Honest men are assigned comparatively inconsequential postings and wrong men are given crucially important assignments. This demoralises those who deliver. Thirdly, they encourage the system of patronage and impunity, which in turn erodes discipline and promotes police deviance. As the Supreme Court observed in the Havala case judgement, frequent and whimsical transfers, besides "demoralizing the police force" and "politicising the personnel" constitute a practice that is "alien to the envisaged constitutional machinery."

What is the solution? The Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms suggested that transfer powers should be taken away from the political executive and given to the departmental hierarchy to be exercised through a Police Establishment Board. This may not be acceptable to many in a parliamentary system of government. Foolproof laws may provide the solution but the politicians will not pass these. What is required is for the civil society to step in and set up pressure groups and mechanisms that help in ensuring that the government frames policies based on acceptable standards and norms and is not allowed to get away with violations.