Challenges faced by the police in the country

Deteriorating quality of state investigation departments.

Lack of effective means to collect and analyse the intelligence data collected
Many apex organizations continue to have huge vacancies.
Outdated arms and equipment.
Lack of coordination within the police departments.
Lack of proper training.
Political interference.
Challenges like police training and quantity of force along with the quality, the long
working hours as well as the isolation of police force from the public in the form of
separate living quarters should be looked into.
Police should be made an integral part the society they live in.
Police reforms should no longer be delayed and the civil society should play its role
for faster action by the government.

Guidelines provided in Prakash singh and ors. Vs. Union of India

Directive One
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:

 Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or
pressure on the police.
 Lay down broad policy guideline.
 Evaluate the performance of the state police.
Directive Two
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through the merit-based transparent process and
secure a minimum tenure of two years.

Directive Three
Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of
Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are
also provided a minimum tenure of two years.

Directive Four
Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.

Directive Five
Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and
other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Directive Six
Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints
Page 1 of 8
against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases
of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody
and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct.

Directive Seven

 Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a

panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organizations
(CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years.
 After this, 14 states have passed legislation but these were mainly to circumvent
the directives but not to implement them. Till today, the government has not shown
its commitment to follow the directives of the court in true letter and spirit.
 “Police reforms are going on and on. Nobody listens to our orders.” – Supreme
Court
 “Police reforms are going on and on. Nobody listens to our orders.” This is how a
Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar reacted while
declining the plea of a lawyer demanding immediate action to usher in major
police reforms in the country (March 2017). The lawyer had earlier been permitted
to implead himself in a pending PIL on the subject.
 It is sad that the highest court of the land is so helpless in the matter.

organizational structure of police in India-

Each state and union territory of India has its own separate police force. Article 246
of the Constitution of India designates the police as a state subject, which means that
the state governments frame the rules and regulations that govern each police force.
These rules and regulations are contained in the police manuals of each state force.
The head of the police force in each state is the Director General of Police (DGP),
who is responsible to the state government for the administration of the police force in
each state, and for advising the government on police matters. The DGP represents the
highest rung in the police hierarchy.
The hierarchical structure of the police in India follows a vertical alignment
consisting of senior officers drawn, by and large, from The Indian Police Service (IPS)
who do the supervisory work, the "upper subordinates" (inspectors, sub-inspectors,
and asst. sub-inspectors) who work generally at the police station level, and the police
constabulary who are delegated the patrolling, surveillance, guard duties, and law and
order work. The constabulary accounts for almost 88% of total police strength.

The Field Establishment of the Police Force

↓
Director General of Police (DGP) {In-charge of the State Police Force}
↓
Additional Director General of Police (Addl. DGP)
↓
Inspector General of Police (IGP) {In-charge of a zone, which comprises few ranges}
↓
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Dy. IGP) {In-charge of a range, which comprise a
group of districts} ↓
Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) {In-charge of the bigger District}
Page 2 of 8
 ↓
Superintendent of police (SP) {In-charge of the District}
↓
Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP)
↓
Assistant/ Deputy Superintendent of Police (ASP/ Dy. SP) {In-charge of a Sub-division
in the district}
↓
Inspector of Police {In-charge of a Police Station} ↓ Sub-Inspector of Police (SI) {In-
charge of a smaller Police Station}
↓
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) {Staff of the Police Station}
↓
The Inspector General of Police 13 Police Head Constable (HC) {Staff of the Police
Station}
↓
Police Constable {Staff of Police Station} On 1.1.2002, the number of field units13 at
different levels in the country was: Number of Police Units Zones 6

Presumption of innocence in Indian criminal justice system in

comparison to USA and UK
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei
incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who
declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless
proven guilty.
In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial,
and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus
on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact.
The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only
actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases
prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the
accused must be acquitted.
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United
States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons
accused of crimes.
F. A. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin, plaintiffs in error, and A. S. Reed had been charged
with aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank, Theodore
P. Haughey, in misdemeanor bank fraud between January 1, 1891, and July 26, 1893.
It is a complex case with a 50-count indictment. But the most interesting aspect is
commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the
undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the
administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence
is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider
what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof
resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself,
Page 3 of 8
whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring
about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an
effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal
evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by
instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their
conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an
important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof
admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant,
the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and
indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.
It is a basic tenet of British law that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and the
burden of proof is on the prosecution. The guide uses illustrations and text to help people
understand the court process.

Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1

Delivering the judgment for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous
"Golden thread" speech:
"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to
be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject
to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the
end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the
evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not
made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the
charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution. must prove the guilt of
the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it
down can be entertained."
Indian prospective in regard to principle is provided in answer number 6.

Under the Indian Constitution, policing is a state power, which means that state
governments have the responsibility to provide their communities with a police service
(the national government has the responsibility for policing in union territories). Most state
governments have a police law that adopts or reflects the basic ideas of the 1861
legislation.

Many committees have submitted several reports on police reforms but they generally
went unimplemented.

Problems with existing Policing system –

1. The police does not have functional responsibility while remaining under the
supervision of the political executive.
2. Political control of police by the political executive is not conditioned and is not kept
within its legitimate bounds.
3. Internal management systems are not fair and transparent.
4. Policing efficiencies have decreased in terms of their core functions.
Page 4 of 8
5. Public complaints are not addressed properly and police accountability is comparatively
less.
National police commission-
The National Police Commission appointed by the government in 1977 felt that “far
reaching changes have taken place in the country” since independence but “there has been
no comprehensive review of the police system after independence despite radical changes
in the political, social and economic situation in the country”. The government’s response
to the core recommendations of the National Police Commission was unfortunately
negative.

Supreme Court directives-

None of the major recommendations of NPC were adopted by any government. This
persuaded two former Director General’s of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct governments to
implement the NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 year long case, in 1998 the
Court set up the Ribeiro Committee which handed in its reports in 1999. This was
followed by the Padmanabhaiah Committee report in 2000 and eventually the Police Act
Drafting Committee (PADC or Soli Sorabjee Committee) that drafted a new model police
bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India delivered
a historic judgment in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, instructing central and state
governments to comply with a set of seven directives that laid down practical mechanisms
to kick-start police reform. The directives are –

1. Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:

a. Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on
the police.
b. Lay down broad policy guideline and
c. Evaluate the performance of the state police
2. Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a
minimum tenure of two years.
3. Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of
Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are
also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
4. Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.
5. Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions
and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
6. Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public
complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in
police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police
Page 5 of 8
personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious
misconduct.
7. Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for
selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a
minimum tenure of two years.
In May 2008 the Supreme Court set up the three- member Monitoring Committee to look
at the implementation of the Court’s directives by the Governments. The committee is
headed by Justice K.T. Thomas- a retired judge of the Supreme Court.

Based on the report of the Committee the Apex Court at its hearing on 8 November 2010,
took serious note of the lack of compliance and issued notices to the four errant states of
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka asking their Chief Secretaries to
appear before the Court at the next hearing to clarify as to why the directions given in its
order of September, 2006, have not been complied with.

It is widely accepted that it is untenable to continue to police the citizens of India under the
Police Act of 1861, which was drafted by the colonial authorities close on the heels of the
first War of Indian Independence in 1857.

The National Police Commission in its 8th and concluding report of 1981, submitted a new
Police Bill for India. Thereafter in 2005 the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the
Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) to draft a Model Police Bill for India. Very
shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, the PADC submitted its draft
Model Police Bill, 2006 to the Home Ministry. This draft bill was also circulated among
all state governments. It was hoped that state governments would enact their own police
legislation whilst drawing on the best elements from the PADC’s Model Police Bill, the
NPC’s Model Police Bill and the Supreme Court directives on police reform. This
however never happened and almost seven years after the Supreme Court judgment as well
as the Model Police Bill being submitted to the union government and union territories
still have no new Police Act.

Police responsibility, measure for reforms

Whenever an offence has been committed in our country, the same is tried according to the
provisions of theCriminal Procedure Code. Whether accused is innocent or offender is
decided on the basis of evidence available in the case. Accused can be convicted even if
the evidence is not
against him. Normally it is believed that he is innocent unless a crime is proved against a
person or accused and during this process accused cannot be denied the rights of
individual freedom given to him under the Constitution of India and also human rights.
The Supreme Court and different High Courts in this respect have given several decisions.
The thought that accused is innocent till the offence is proved is always in the minds of the
court.
Page 6 of 8
Presumption of Innocence in the Evidence Act:
Our laws are based on the Common Law and equality of law. One of the important and
well-known principles is that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved
against him. This principle is called the Presumption of Innocence. In other words,
accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. This
principle is being seen in countries where executorial system is prevalent. In several
European countries the Inquisitorial principle or the principle based on inquiry is not being
followed. But contrary to Indian Law in several countries accused is considered to be an
offender till he is proved to be innocent. Since India is having executorial system, the law
has accepted both these principles. Under these provisions, Magistrate remains neutral and
helps accused instead of the complainant. This means, even if accused is not aware of his
legal rights, he gets necessary help from the court and the court ensures that accused are
not denied their rights. Complainant in criminal cases is represented by the State and that
helps in the process of finding out the truth. However, it is not the duty of the complainant
to ensure that accused is convicted by any means. Their only duty is to divulge the true
facts without bias before the Court. Their interest is to see that the truth is revealed and the
culprit is punished. On the other hand, the defendant has to look after his client's interest
and needs to do everything possible to protect accused. Besides, in our legal system
provisions have been made1 to conduct criminal cases in open court and accused is given
adequate opportunity to prove his innocence.
Following two rules can be derived from such a leniency of law:
(1) A person who gives certain Statement, the burden to prove that Statement lies on him;
(2) Till a case is not proved against accused, which means until accused is proved guilty; it
is to be presumed that he is innocent
Exceptions in Presumption of Innocence of Accused:
As per the prevailing judicial procedure and the fundamental law of the criminal law, in
most of the cases the burden of proof is normally on the complainant. When the
complainant can prove the case without any doubt and is beyond a reasonable doubt, then
only accused can be convicted. If the offence is not proved according to reasonable doubt,
accused has to be acquitted, that means it is presumed that accused is innocent. There are
certain notable exceptions in this presumption:
(1) In many laws Mens rea or criminal mind is not there. While performing certain public
welfare activities, a presumption arise that accused is guilty. Here accused has to prove
that he was not guilty.
(2) In certain other crimes like keeping stolen goods, crimes related to prohibition, crimes
related to moral turpitude, adulteration of foodstuff, dowry cases, terrorism crimes, crimes
against drugs, etc., it is presumed that accused is guilty. An evidence of premediation can
be given against such accused, which means it cannot be believed that accused is innocent.
In our prevalent legal system, normally it is believed that accused is innocent but three
sections of the Indian Evidence Act Section 111-A, 113-A and 113-B have been added
later on. 8y these three sections the burden of proof has been shifted from the complainant
and imposed on the accused. The provisions of these three sections are that
when a person has:
(a) Committed an offence under Section 121,121-A,122 or 123 OR
(b) Has planned to commit a crime covered under Section 122 or 123 or encouraged to
commit a crime, Section 111-A (1) of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable. Section 111-
A(2) is applicable when someone has been charged with commission or alleged to have
committed any of the aforesaid offences.
(c) Section 111-A(1) of Indian Evidence Act is applicable when a person is alleged to have
committed a crime in disturbed area where laws relating to public peace and tranquility
and controlling the disturbance are in force and the area has been declared a disturbed
area, OR
(d) Any area where there is excessive disturbance for more than a month and if accused in

Page 7 of 8
such cases have been shown to have attacked or used fire arms or explosives on members
of armed forces performing their public duty for maintaining peace or were attacked,
unless shown otherwise it would be primarily presumed that such a person has committed
an offence and Section 111-A( 1) would be applied against
them. When a question arises if a woman has been encouraged to commit suicide by her
husband or relatives or in-laws within seven years of marriage and lor if a woman has
committed suicide and has been shown that any of her relatives has behaved cruelly
towards her, in such cases taking all the circumstances into consideration, it would be
presumed by the Court that her husband or relatives or in-laws have prompted her to
commit suicide. This provision has been made in Section 113(a) of the Indian Evidence
Act. When a question arises if a person has caused death of a woman for dowry and such a
person had demanded and harassed her for dowry soon before the death or behaved cruelly
towards her, in such cases the court would presume that such a person has caused the
dowry death. This provision has been made in Section113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.

***********

Page 8 of 8