Begin police reforms now, says SC, rejecting CMs’ pleas

But on other directions — the setting up of State Security Commission, establishment of police complaints authority and separation of investigation from maintaining law and order — the court granted time till March 31. States have to furnish compliance affidavits by April 10.

The court also took exception to a January 2 notification of the Centre, by which a Committee on National Security and Central Police Personnel Welfare was established with the Union Home Minister as head. What the court had wanted was the setting up of a National Security Commission “free of political interference” for appointing chiefs to Central police organisations.

When this was pointed out by petitioner Prakash Singh’s counsel Prashant Bhushan, the judges said: “Its constitution is strictly not in accordance with the directions of the court.” They granted time till March 31 to bring it in conformity with the court’s orders.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal said that, considering that of the slew of directions issued last year, these three are “self-executory”, there is “no question of further grant of time implement it forthwith.”

Not mincing words, the bench said: “Considering that everyone concerned realises the need of expeditious introduction of police reforms, we were hopeful that three months were sufficient to comply with directions issued in September, last year. But we wish to make it clear, for whatever is stated in the affidavit or applications, we cannot entertain them.”

Chief ministers, cutting across political lines, had either sought review of the court’s orders or more time to carry out its directions.

Significantly, the three-member bench hearing a PIL seeking reforms in the Police Act, 1861, remarked on how State Governments and even the Centre had been silent on the issue before.

“As we noted earlier, when the matter was heard for number of days, none of the States objected to any suggestions contained in the reports of the National Police Commision or several committees and commisions appointed for the purpose (to suggest suitable amendments to be brought in the Police Act and the police machinery),” the judges said.

When senior advocate Arun Jaitely, appearing for Madhya Pradesh, tried to justify seeking more time, saying a mechanism needed to be evolved for implementation of the orders, the judges remarked that there seemed to be unanimity among Congress, BJP and other-ruled states.

Refusing any relief to the Centre or the States, the court said: “Accountability and responsibility of police is to be towards rule of law.”

Quoting from its earlier order, it indicated, “…how not even then, (three decades ago) none disputed the need to bring in police reforms and now also. Today, the need is to introduce the police reforms and which have to be implemented very expeditiously now.”