Date : 23/10/2023

Relevance:GS Paper 3- Internal Security - Police Reforms

Keywords: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, Rajesh & Anr. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Case, Prakash Singh & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. (2006), Law Commission

Context-

The Supreme Court of India recently made a significant decision in the case of Rajesh & Anr. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, addressing the importance of establishing a consistent and reliable code of investigation to prevent the guilty from evading justice on technical grounds. This landmark decision shed light on the need for a more robust investigative framework. However, it's crucial to conduct a reality check and explore the intricate aspects surrounding this issue.

The Pitfall of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:

• One of the key points raised by the Court relates to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which outlines the conditions for the admissibility of facts discovered in consequence of information from a person "accused of any offense" and "in the custody of a police officer." The Court held that a person cannot be considered in police custody until formally arrested, as they were not mentioned as an accused in the First Information Report (FIR). However, this interpretation may not align with established legal principles.
• In the case of Man Singh (1959), the Court clarified that "custody" doesn't exclusively mean detention or confinement. It extends to submission to custody, whether through action or words, effectively encompassing situations where a person is under police surveillance and cannot break away from police company. This interpretation broadens the notion of police custody.
• Furthermore, the Court in State Of U.P. vs Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) emphasized that the term "accused of any offense" describes the person against whom evidence related to information can be proven under Section 27. Thus, the individual doesn't have to be formally accused at the time of the statement but should be an accused when it is presented in court. This allows for situations where the discovery of incriminating evidence based on information from a suspect not listed as an accused in the FIR could necessitate an arrest. Therefore, custody under Section 27 does not require formal arrest by the police.

The Issue of Compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure:

• The Court also highlighted the importance of complying with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which concerns the presence of independent witnesses during searches and seizures.
• The rationale behind this is that Section 100 deals with procedures to compel the production of items during a search, while facts revealed by an accused in custody occur voluntarily and in response to discoveries. These are fundamentally different processes, and, as a result, the safeguards from search proceedings should not be directly applied to discoveries based on voluntary revelations.

The Need for Enhanced Investigations:

• While the Court's concerns about the quality of police investigations are valid, it is essential to evaluate the progress made by various states in response to recommendations from commissions and committees.
• The Justice Malimath Committee report recommended separating the investigation wing from the law and order wing within the police. Although this separation might not be a panacea for all investigative challenges, it's vital to examine the efforts of states before placing the entire blame on the police for irregularities.
\
• The Law Commission's Report emphasized that many police stations are understaffed, insufficient priority is given to the investigation of crimes, and there is a lack of periodic training to upgrade investigative skills.
• The commission reiterated the need to separate investigation from law-and-order duties, a directive that was reinforced by the top court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. (2006).



Supreme Court Directives on Police Reforms

In 1996, Prakash Singh and NK Singh, both former Director Generals of Police, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the Supreme Court's intervention in compelling the government to implement recommendations from police commissions. In response to this PIL, the Supreme Court issued a set of seven directives in 2006, aimed at reforming and improving the functioning of the police system in India. These directives are outlined as follows:

• Mandate the creation of a State Security Commission to prevent unwarranted interference by the state government in police affairs.
• Ensure that the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) is conducted through a transparent and merit-based process, with a minimum tenure of two years to enhance stability and effectiveness.
• Enforce a minimum two-year tenure for police officers serving in operational roles to provide continuity and expertise in these critical positions.
• Separate the responsibilities of "law and order" and "investigation" within the police structure to enhance specialization and efficiency.
• Establish a Police Establishment Board responsible for overseeing transfers, promotions, postings, and other service-related matters concerning police officers.
• Institute police complaints authorities at both the state and district levels to investigate public complaints against police officers at or above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial abuse and fatalities.
• Form a National Security Commission at the central level to create a panel for selecting and appointing Chiefs of Central Police Organizations, ensuring a minimum tenure of two years to bolster leadership stability.


• It is important to note that the basic framework for policing in India was established way back in 1861, with little change since, while society has undergone dramatic transformations, especially in post-independence times. Public expectations of the police have multiplied, and new types of crimes have emerged. The policing system requires reform to be aligned with current realities and upgraded to effectively address crime and criminals, uphold human rights, and safeguard the legitimate interests of all.
• The emergence of new crimes like Cyber Crime and counter-insurgency calls for technological upgradation of the police system in India. Further, control rooms too need to be upgraded in the face of changing times. Further, there are issues in the registration of crimes where heinous crimes go off-recorded to build the image of a corruption-free country.

Progress on Separation of Investigation:

• Prakash Singh, a former Director General of Police, reviewed the recommendations of previous commissions and committees. Out of the seven directives issued by the Court, one was related to separating investigation from law and order to ensure quicker investigations, greater expertise, and improved community relations. This separation was to be initially implemented in towns and urban areas with a population of 10 lakh or more and then extended to smaller towns.
• According to Mr. Singh's book, "The Struggle for Police Reforms in India" (2022), seventeen states have taken measures to separate the investigative and law and order functions of the police, while the remaining states are not opposed to the directive but have yet to initiate necessary steps for separation. However, the compliance of these directives varies, with nine states categorized as "good and satisfactory" and twenty states as "average and poor." The lack of additional manpower is a significant obstacle to implementing this separation, especially in smaller towns where resources are limite

The Need for a Comprehensive Approach:

• A code of investigation does exist in states, but these codes need regular revisions and updates to incorporate the Supreme Court's instructions.
• The primary issue, however, is the inadequate number of investigating officers and their inability to upgrade their skills due to manpower shortages. Merely in addressing these issues through rule and regulation amendments may not be sufficient.

The Role of the Supreme Court:

• To address these complex challenges comprehensively, the Supreme Court must play an active role.
• The Court should require every state and union territory to report on their compliance with its directives on investigation and other issues.
• Additionally, there should be consistency in the Court's rulings unless earlier judgments are explicitly overruled for substantial reasons.

Conclusion

Enhancing the quality of police investigations in India is a multifaceted challenge. While the Supreme Court's emphasis on the need for a consistent and dependable code of investigation is valid, it is equally important to acknowledge the complexities and nuances surrounding legal interpretations and the practical implementation of investigative reforms. A comprehensive approach that considers not only legal aspects but also resource constraints and the need for ongoing training and skill development is crucial to achieve meaningful and lasting improvements in the criminal justice system.

Source - The Hindu