Prakash Singh v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 22 September 2006, 3 judges
Finding that police reform recommendations had stayed unimplemented for decades, the Court issued binding directions under Articles 32 and 142 on police structure, tenure and accountability, to operate until legislation was enacted.
Facts
The Government of India appointed a National Police Commission in 1977, which made eight reports between 1979 and 1981, including a draft new Police Act. Its recommendations were not implemented. A retired Director General of Police, another former senior police officer and Common Cause filed this Article 32 petition about ten years before judgment, seeking directions to frame a new Police Act on the Commission's model, to redefine the role of the police, to constitute commissions and boards insulating the police from pressure, and to separate investigation from law and order. The Court noted that the NHRC, the Law Commission and the Ribeiro, Padmanabhaiah and Malimath Committees had made similar recommendations, that the Sorabjee Committee was drafting a new Act, and that no State or Union Territory urged that the suggestions be rejected.
Questions before the Court
- Should the Court continue to wait for the Governments to carry out police reforms, or issue directions itself?
- What directions on the structure, tenure and accountability of the police should operate until new Police Acts are enacted?
What the Court held
- Given the gravity of the problem, the need to preserve the rule of law, the long pendency of the petition, the converging recommendations of many bodies and total uncertainty about reform, the Court would not wait further and would issue directions operative until new legislation is enacted.
- Articles 32 and 142 empower the Court to issue directions needed for complete justice, and Article 144 obliges all authorities to act in aid of its orders; guidelines may be laid down in the absence of legislation, as noted in Vineet Narain.
- Each State must constitute a State Security Commission, on the NHRC, Ribeiro or Sorabjee model, with binding recommendations; the DGP must be selected from the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC and have a minimum two-year tenure; field officers from SHO to Zonal IG also get a minimum two-year tenure.
- Investigation must be separated from law and order, starting with urban areas of ten lakh or more; a Police Establishment Board will decide transfers and postings up to Deputy Superintendent; Police Complaints Authorities at district and State level will make binding recommendations; the Centre must set up a National Security Commission for Central Police Organisation chiefs.
- The directions were to be complied with by 31 December 2006, with compliance affidavits by 3 January 2007. A suggestion to treat terrorism and organised crime cases as defence of India matters for the CBI was referred to expert bodies for their views.
Why it matters
The judgment lays down seven directions on police reform, binding on the Central and State Governments and Union Territories until they enact suitable legislation. It rests the Court's power to issue such directions in the absence of legislation on Articles 32, 142 and 144, and adopts reform measures from the National Police Commission, NHRC, Ribeiro and Sorabjee reports: State Security Commissions, fixed tenure, separation of investigation, Establishment Boards and Complaints Authorities.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem; (ii) the urgent need for preservation and strengthening of Rule of Law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv) the fact that various Commissions and Committees have made recommendations on similar lines for introducing reforms in the police set-up in the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced, we think that there cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come for issue of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be operative till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by the Central Government and/or the State Governments pass the requisite legislations.”
“It is not possible or proper to leave this matter only with an expression of this hope and to await developments further. It is essential to lay down guidelines to be operative till the new legislation is enacted by the State Governments. Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to issue such directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. All authorities are mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the orders passed by this Court.”
“The State Governments are directed to constitute a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)“The decision in Vineet Narain's case (supra) notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be observed were issued in absence of legislation” (page 7)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996
- Decided
- 22 September 2006
- Bench
- Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI. No separate opinion appears in the file.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.