The Madras High Court on Monday directed the State government to file a comprehensive report by March 14 on steps taken by it to implement the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act of 2013 in letter and spirit. It also wanted to know whether the law had been enacted strictly in conformity with Supreme Court’s verdict in Prakash Singh’s case of 2006.
Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam passed the interim order on a public interest litigation petition, which sought effective implementation of Supreme Court directives on police reforms.
When the case came up for admission, the judges said the State had already passed a legislation pursuant to the directives issued on September 20, 2006.
They asked Additional Government Pleader E. Manoharan to produce a copy of the Act. After perusing it, the judges found that many of its provisions appeared to remain only on paper.
The Act provided for not disturbing any police officer, beginning from the rank of an Inspector to Director General of Police, from the post for a minimum of two years.
It also required establishment of a State Security Commission, chaired by the Minister holding the Home portfolio and comprising the Leader of the Opposition as well as chairpersons of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, State Women’s Commission and Minorities Commission apart from the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and DGP.
Key indicators
The object of the commission was to frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, effective, responsive and accountable policing and to identify performance indicators to evaluate the functioning of the police force.
Such indicators should include operational efficiency, public satisfaction, victim satisfaction and observance of human rights standards.
In order to ensure accountability, it mandated establishment of a Police Complaints Authority, both at the State level as well as district level, to inquire into complaints of serious misconduct (death in police custody, rape, grievous hurt in police custody) and misconduct (extortion, land grabbing or other abuse of authority) against police personnel.
Pointing out that Section 9 of the Act states that the police officers in the investigation wing in every police station must be called ‘Detective Constables, Detective Head Constables and Detective Sub Inspectors,’ Justice M. Sathyanarayanan asked, “Do you call the policemen by such names? It shows this Act remains only on paper.”
Most of the policemen in the police stations end up doing only bandobust duty though the Act clearly states that the police personnel designated for investigation purposes in every police station should not be diverted for bandobust duty without the prior approval of the zonal Inspector General or Commissioner of Police.
Similarly, every police station must have a liaison officer in the rank of Detective Sub Inspector to coordinate and follow up the cases of missing persons.
