LAW RESOURCE INDIA

APEX COURT GETS TOUGH ON POLICE REFORMS

Posted in POLICE REFORMS by NNLRJ INDIA on November 10, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. VS VERSUS U.O.I. & ORS.

Date: 08/11/2010 This Matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN

O R D E R

As far back as on 22nd September, 2006, this Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (C) No.310 of 1996, since reported in 2006 (8) S.C.C.1 issued, inter alia,six directives to the State Governments in respect of State Security Commission, selection of minimum tenure of DGP, minimum tenure of IG of Police and other officers, separation of investigation, setting up of Police Establishment Board and setting up of Police Complaint Authority.

By Order dated 16th May, 2008, in I.A. Nos.20-38 with I.A. No.3 in Writ Petition (C) No.310 of 1996, in the matter of implementation of the above directions, Thomas Committee was constituted and it was directed to submit it’s Report within three months. The terms and conditions on which the Report was sought was also stipulated in the said Order, which reads as under:

“1) To examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in compliance to the Court’s direction with reference to ground realities.

2) Advise the respondents wherever the implementation is falling short of the Court’s order, after considering the respondents’ stated difficulties in implementation.

3) Bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems the respondents may have in view of the specific conditions prevailing in a State or Union Territory.

4) Examine the new legislations enacted by different States regarding the police to see whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of the Court’s directions.

5) Apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any respondent so that appropriate follow-up action could be taken against that respondent.

6) Submit a status report on compliance to this Court every six months.

The Committee shall be provided necessary infrastructure and required financial assistance by the Government of India (the Ministry of Home Affairs/Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to enable it to carry on its functions.The Committee may, if necessary, visit a particular State for discussing any matter relating to implementation with the officers of that State. Home Ministry is directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the Secretary General of Supreme Court towards initial expenses of the Committee.

The Committee will function initially for a period of two years only. This Hon’ble Court may, however, extend its life span, if considered necessary.”

The final Report of the Thomas Committee dated 23rd August, 2010, has now been submitted to this Court and the same has been received by almost all States appearing before us, particularly,States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. We regret to say that, till today,most of the directions given by this Court in it’s Order dated 22nd September, 2006, have remained noncompliant.

To begin with, the Thomas Committee has given a chart, which is quoted at Page 12 of the compilation given by the learned amicus curiae, which indicates non-compliance, partial compliance,marginal compliance and in the end, to say the least, paper compliance. None of the above States have issued appropriate notification/Government Order on the directions given by this Court in it’s Order dated 22nd September, 2006.

In the circumstances, we hereby issue notice, in the first instance, to the following four States:

[i] Karnataka;

[ii] Maharashtra;

[iii] Uttar Pradesh; and

[iv] West Bengal.

We hereby direct the Chief Secretary of each of the above four States to remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing, i.e., 6th December, 2010. The said notice will be show-cause notice which the States will have to reply through the Chief Secretary as to why the six directions given in the Order dated 22nd September, 2006, have not been complied.

We may reiterate that each of the States have appeared through their respective advocates before us. They have stated that they are in receipt of the Report of Thomas Committee. The matter shall stand over to 6th December, 2010, at 2.00 p.m.

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. P M Ravindran said, on November 11, 2010 at 10:57

    Great thing indeed! But when will the court do something about judicial reforms, which the more crying need of the day/hour!

    Incidently, we have police complaints authority in kerala- 14 districts divided between 2 retired judges and assisted by the district collectors and SPs of the concerned districts. In a complaint against the abuse of authority by the DySP who arrested 13 activists conducting a peaceful dharna, I heard this retired judge mutter- if a policeman orders you to move away aren’t you bound to do so? Great again!

    I generally believe that the courts have reduced themselves to the role of justifying the crimes of the rich and power. These days my prayer is ‘Oh God, please save us from our judiciary’!

    Incidently, it is the kerala high court that has held bandhs illegal. This was contested by the state govt in the apex court and the apex court had thrown out their appeal. From media reports I have also learnt that based on this order political parties have been penalised in Maharashatra. But in kerala though we have continued to have bandhs, (renamed hartals, as if that is enough to escape the proverbial long arm of law!) on an average of once in a fortnight, till date there has not been any report of any conviction of the law breakers.

  2. AJIT TRIPATHI said, on December 12, 2010 at 12:07

    police reform is of no use unless we have a independent porsecution agency .this agency is still working onthe ruins of raj day.in up particularly no procedure ofappointment in session and high court. director of prosecution is there but only for a.p.ps working in lower court.govt has thrown 2005 cr.p.c.amendmet in dustbeen.assistant proecuting officer unabale to get promotion spent 20 yrs in sevice.prosecutors working insession court and high court are at politicalparties will worst days of britshers.sec.25of cr.p.c not implemented.nosense of security either in job or life.no time bound pomotion for A.P.P OF LOWER COURT.they are pleading petty cases but leaving their home DISTT


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: