- (1.) URGENT need to usher in police reforms has been receiving attention of all Governments concerned, authorities and bodies for about three decades. Various commissions and committees were set up which gave their reports. As far back as in November 1977, the Government of India had appointed National Police Commission which gave reports in number of volumes after examining the matter from various angles for nearly four years. A petition filed in this Court ultimately resulted in issue of directions by judgment and order dated 22-9-2005 in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1 : 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 417. The judgment refers to the reports of the National Police Commission and other committees. It, inter alia, notices that the commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law. In fact, none disputed then or now the need to introduce the police reforms. It also cannot be seriously questioned that these reforms have to be introduced very expeditiously now. The judgment further notices that the supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status or position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. Its role has to be defined so that, in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, rule of law becomes a casualty, guilty police officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.
(2.) THE directions in the judgment were issued after hearing, besides counsel for the petitioner, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms Indu Malhotra, learned counsel representing National Human Rights Commission, Ms Swati Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives. It is pertinent to note that notice of the petition was given to all the State Governments/Union Territories. When the arguments were heard, none of the State Governments/Union Territories made any submission or suggestion that the suggestions given in the reports either by the National Human Rights Commission or in Rebeiro Committee or Sorabjee Committee or in the Police Commission be not accepted. Same position was taken by the learned Solicitor General who appeared for the Government of India in the matter. Reference has also been made to a letter that was sent by the Union Home Minister in the year 1997 to the State Governments revealing a distressing situation and expressing the views that, if rule of law has to prevail, the situation must be cured. After perusing various reports, directions were issued to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance therewith on or before 31-12-2006, so that the bodies directed to be constituted become operational on the onset of the new year. The top bureaucrats in the Central Government/State Governments/Union Territories were directed to file affidavits of compliance by 3-1-2007. Considering that every one concerned realises the need of expeditious introduction of police reforms, we were fairly hopeful that three months' time was sufficient to comply with the directions issued on 22-9-2006. Some of the State Governments have complied with some directions but none, except the State of Sikkim, has complied with all the directions.
(3.) WE have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel for the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, Mr Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for National Capital Territory of Delhi, Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, Mr Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, Mr T.R. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, Ms Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and other counsel appearing for some other States, like Nagaland. We have also heard submissions made by Mr Prashant Bhushan and Ms Swati Mehta, (earned counsel.;