human rights


e –Voice Of Human Rights Watch – e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraj.M.R….vol.3…issue.17……07/07/2007


 Editorial : False Affidavits , Information Hiding – Crimes of supreme court of India & Public Servants


Many public servants are leading luxurious lifestyles , beyond the legal sources of their income. Many public servants are filing false affidavits about their annual income , wealth details to Election Commission of India / Vigilance Commission / other authorities , as the case may be. These authorities are not properly verifying these affidavits . many scams , scandals are coming to light day in & day out , politicians are accussing each other of involvement in scams. Whereas , the said authorities are keeping mum , as if those affidavits filed by tainted public servants are true.


The tainted public servants are not even providing full , right information to public as per RTI Act, lest the truth come out. Just imagine , even the supreme court of India violated RTI Act – failed to give information to our publication as per RTI Act , lest the truth – skeletons in judiciary comes out.


Some public servants , caught redhanded during luxurious spending , easily says that it is at their political paty’s expense or their well wisher’s expense. However no entries are found in the account books of said parties to that respect. The law forbids public servants from accepting gifts , hospitality , favours beyond the value of rupees one hundred  ( Rs. 100 ) , as it may be a form of bribe.


Hereby , HRW urges the honourable supreme court of India , to enforce RTI Act , annual filing of affidavits by public servants , fool-proof verification of those affidavits by public committees comprising ordinary citizens as mandatory encompassing all public offices. As a first step , it must be enforced to judges , police personnel & tax officials . then alone , many socio-economic problems , corruption in India can be solved. JAI HIND . VANDE MATARAM .


Your’s sincerely ,



History of Corruption in Indian Judiciary since Independence: 1947 – 2003


1949: Mr. Justice Sinha  only Judge impeached; courtesy Good Judges & Constitution Framers: Our Fore-Fathers represented by Constituent Assembly of India framers of Constitution of India then in 1949 (year before Consitution came into existence) impeached Mr. Justice Sinha; finding him “guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice…” [008.07].
Such/ similar acts/ behaviours by whom-so-ever including Judges is since 1971 is covered as an act of Criminal Contempt of Court [041.05 ]. Not a single Judge is either Impeached or hauled-up for Contempt till 1991.
Peoples’ Inner Hope Courts to maintain their Majesty & Dignity will prosecute 1000 Judges in context, who have tarnished & undermined the Fair image of Judiciary.
Let Judges relish Jail for months if not years ; to asses personally the convinences-N-comforts provided even to innocent citizens or persons who were not having Rs. 100 to give as Bail. Then they will be in better position to Transform Jails into Reformation Centres. Jailing corrupt Judges by Judges , we hope will instill confidence of people in Courts & law. Who-is-who of
India then only will scare to get into any scam nor Criminals will think of becoming Legislators.

1979 : Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami ; Chief Justice of India permitted Central Bureau of India to file case of Dis-proportionate of Income / wealth against Chief Justice Madras High Court Mr. K. Veeraswami ( father-in-law of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ). 30 years elaped. Sheltered by Courts’ easy-go-tactic. [049.04] [059.05 ]

1991-93: Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ( son-in-law of Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami [049.04 ] ) : SAWANT COMMITTEE REPORT had held he is guilty of several charges. Supreme Court of India also upheld guilty of 3-4 charges ; & recommended to Parliament for further action. Parliamentarians failed in their Duty to Impeach the Sitting Judge of Supreme Court Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ; not rising to the Heights of Eminent Constitution makers ; but chose to have unholy alliance with Corruption in Judiciary vis-a-vis Legislature & Government.[008.00 ].
Supreme Court which upheld Charges of Mis-Behaviour also , we opine , failed to prosecute him under Contempt of Court Act & relevant Laws . It also failed ” To Do Complete Justice” by invoking Article142 . Criminal Judge was allowed to go scot-free; both by Parliament & Supreme Court !
Good precedent for other Judges ? If so What kind of message to we-innocent-Citizens ? For almost complete proceedings in SC & Parliament: [008.00 ]

1995     A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the Bombay High Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had received Rs.70 lakh as book advance from a publishing firm known to have links with the underworld.

1996     AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement

1994 to 1997:  A.M. AHMADI: When he was Chief Justice of India (October 1994-March 1997), his daughter, a lawyer in the Delhi High Court, caused eyebrows to be raised for getting “special” treatment from certain judges. When some members of the bar sought a resolution banning lawyer relatives of judges from staying in the same house, the CJI got members to defeat the motion.

2000  A.S. ANAND: As Chief Justice of India. (a)  He was accused of using his position to get the subordinate judiciary to rule in favour of his wife and mother-in-law in a suit that had been barred by limitation for two decades.For more: [049.05] [049.05A]  [049.05B]  [049.05C]  [049.05D]  [049.05E ] called as TANGLED PLOT. Also read Ram Jethmalani’s ” BIG EGOS, small men “.  (b) Supreme Court , while he was CJI,directed   a CBI probe after a dispute arose over his age in 2000. The investigation report was not made public.This arose due to scan copy published in Ram Jethmalani’s ” BIG EGOS, small men “.  

In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to “fix” a case in her favour. Justice Mr.· Arun Madan . Case of Lady Sunita Malviya.STATUS: A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore. Judge Resigned

CASH-FOR-JOB :Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the commission . Judges are  M.L. Singh , Mehtab Sing Gill & Amarbir Singh
STATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him.

2002-03: 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal ( alleged ) : On Sunday, November 3, 2002, three judges of the Karnataka High Court, along with two women advocates, allegedly got involved in a brawl with a woman guest at a resort. The police arrived but reportedly didn’t take action. Judges are N.S. Veerabhadraiah , V. Gopalagowda &· Chandrashekaraiah .STATUS: The three-judge inquiry committee appointed by the CJI  filed its report. Gave clean chit.

March 2003 – Delhi High Court Judge resigns: Suspected of collusion with Property Developers. Raids by CBI on corrupt higher officials  in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), found Draft Judgement-N-Court Records 

E(I)nquiry-in-camera or In-House Inquiry was & is contrary to Law . Is ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India: ” The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”
 Following Questions / Issues, inter alia , arise

( a ) Enquiry in-camera was held contrary to the observations made by, Constituent Assembly of India in 1949. In its’ Impeachment Order had held thus:”While we are alive to the desirability, in the interests of the public, of investigating charges against a Judge in open court, we held the Enquiry in-camera in view of the allegation made in the affidavits and the circumstances of the case. This mode of proceeding should not, however, be regarded as a precedent.” [008.07 ].
( b) In the case of similar In-House Inquiry held under the Orders of Chief Justice of India in Jusice V. Ramaswami’s case , Justice Ramaswami had held that ” Inquiring Committee” as well as ” Inquiry” have no basis & force of law. It is reflected in the Report , which was read-out by CJI to Advocates & publicised , submitted by
3 Judges Committee thus” Indeed Justice Ramaswami had made it clear to the Chief Justice that he did not recognise any such Jurisdiction in any body or authority.”
(c) It will not be out-of place to mention here that Two of “Three Judges Committee ” appointed by CJI in Re. V. Ramaswami’s case are alleged to be involved in Judges Plot 4 Plot.[014.00]. It is like Criminal investigating another criminal .
( d ) If so how sure can we be that ” 3 Judges Committee ” appointed to invetigate ” 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal ” were un-biased or were above Board & have presented an accurate Report ?

Queries to Supreme Court , Parliament of India & Central Government
In Re. Judges’ Mysore Sex Scandal
( a)” Will the Supreme Court Publicise Report of ” 3 Judges Committee ” ( all & sundry material); morefully to know whether any evidence adduced by many in support of Scam is informed to CJI & Supreme Court ?
(b) What is the Guarantee that despite prima facie evidence Judges of Supreme Court which consists of Few corrupt Judges seved in Karnataka are not inclined to take stern action ?
(c) Investigation of a Crime comitted by Minister or anyone lies within Executive Domain like the case Justice K.Veeraswami, in this case CBI . Is it not a case of hushing-up & messing-up of ” 3 Pillars of Constitution ” ?.
How long will you try keeping suppressed Crimes of Judges of Supreme Court & High Courts when Union Law Minister Mr. P. Shiva Shankar , on 28th Nov.1987 said ” Supreme Court is filled with FERA violators & Bride Burners…” ( AIR 1988 SC 1208 ). When Chief Justice Of India Justice E.S. Venkataramaiaha admits that “in every High Court there are 3-4 Judges who are out every evening to Party in Foreign Embassiies or at Advocates’ places…drink…dine…” (1990 Cr LJ 2179 ) [041.09].
(e) 20% of Judges are corrupt , indirectly said Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha , in other words admitted that 80% of Judges of India are not corrupt & are above board to be bribed or influnced ? Then why cases are not filed against 20% of Judges ?

LOSS of Confidence in Judiciary : The Actions & Inactions of Supreme Court trying to suppress crimes of Judges has resulted in We, the People of India losing confidence in Courts & given rise to a Question whether at all People of India’s Fundamental & Statutory Rights are safe in present set of Judges & Courts and Laws Governing thereof ?

Conscience of Judiciary Shaken: Supreme Court of India: “Police Raj” it said when Judges all over India went on a kind of strike; for the reason that a District Judge in liquor prohibited Gujarat State in 1991; drunk & misbehaved , police acted as per law or so. Conscience of Judiciary was shaken the Court claims. What was it to do with Judges all over India? Have they ganged-up as One to help each other & continue crimes but still go unpunished? Punish Dutiful Police?

“Police Raj” to “Judges Tyranny”: Judges serving all over India have formed an Assocition called ” All India Judges Association “. At the time when One Party System in Parliament managed by Congress was to give way to Multi-Party System (1989 & 1991 General Elections); Supreme Court gave Judgments in 1992 & 1993 upholding that Judges of subordinate courts of India are not Employees. They are like Ministers / M.L.A.s but not on par of Civil Servants [037.02][037.02A ]. Inter alia Court said Central Govt. should set-up ” All India Judicial Services ” & ” National Judicial Pay Commission “. Supreme Court continuously monitored to see that Pay Commission (FNJPC) is constituted but failed to monitor setting-up of All India Judicial Services [055.02 ]. What Judges want is more Liberty / Perks / Powers but no liabilities / Duties. Un-bridled they want to be as Judges of Supreme Court & High Court. FNJPC was also given power to give Interim Relief to Judges. Non setting-up of National Judicial Academy [008.15 ] & All India Judicial Services is nothing but Fraud on Constitution & Supreme Court

Criminal Politicians Vs Criminal Judges : Hats off for the Judgment of Supreme Court striking-down of Parliamentary Act amending Representatives of Peoples Act. Court said Come Clean Mr. Politicians in relation to diclosure of their Criminal , Financial & other such antecedents so as to help electorate of India to decide whether to vote for good or bad person in elections. But this 50 years belated Judgment came as Bolt from Blue to politicians. In this perod Aliens, Anti-nationals, Criminals & all sundries had a field Day.

But then What about Criminal / Corrupt / Judgment-for-Sex Judges ?: The Supreme Court was unanimous in the Judgment of corrupt politicians. Parliament is not unanimous to Bridle Judges or judiciary. Nor is the Supreme Court ready to find ways & means to Tame / Terminate / Jail the Corrupt / criminal / Judgment-for-Sex Judges. Such inactions of Supreme Court or High Court is nothing short of giving leverage to such of them. It looks as though Supreme Court on its own is eroding faith of Public in Judiciary as a whole. Like Termites these Judges are Constitutional-Enemies-Within-India who are bent upon to disseminate corruption among other Good Judges.



Dear Madam  ,

INDIA: Student denied admission to the University for exercising his right under law

Name of the victims:
1. Mr. Djhananjay Tripathi, a resident of D 25/21-22 Ganga Mahal, Rajghat, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai, former student of the Bachelor of Physical Education course at the
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Professor Panjab Singh, the Vice Chancellor,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
2. Mr. N. Sundaram, the Registrar,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
3. Dr. Vishwnath Pandey, the Central Public Information Officer,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
4. Professor Chudamani Gopal, Medical Superintendent, Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
5. Dr. D.N. Singh, the Chief Medical Officer, Emergency Out Patient Department, Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
6. Dr. R.S. Sharma, the Senior Medical Officer,
Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
7. Dr. R. K Gupta, the Senior Medical Officer, Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
8. Dr. K.K. Tripathi,
Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
9. Dr. Munish Chauhan,
Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
10. Professor S. K. Singh, the Chief Proctor, Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
Date and place of Incident: Since January 2005, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi  

I am writing to express my concern regarding the death of a student at the Sir Sundar Lal Hospital affiliated to the Banaras Hindu University due to alleged neglect in treatment and the victimization of yet another student who tried to bring the circumstances related to the student’s death into public attention.

I am informed that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai, a former student of the Bachelor of Physical Education course at the Banaras Hindu University died at the Sir Sundar Lal Hospital on 11 January 2005. It is alleged that Rai’s death was due to the neglect of the hospital staff at the Sir Sundar Lal Hospital. I am also informed that the students staged a protest soon after the death and the Vice Chancellor was forced to order an enquiry into the incidents that led to the death of Mr. Rai at the University Hospital.

I am informed that the report of inquiry held several hospital and university staff responsible for the situation that led to Rai’s death. Since the report was not made public, Mr. Djhananjay Tripathi, another student at the university filed a petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requiring a copy of the enquiry report. I am informed that the report was not given to Tripathi even though he took the matter in appeal and further to the Central Information Commission.

I am also informed that the Central Information Commission ordered that the report should be given to the applicant, Mr. Tripathi, which the university failed to comply. Owing to the failure, the concerned officer was ordered by the Central Information Commission to pay fine as compensation to Tripathi. I am also informed that in the meanwhile Tripathi who appeared for two consecutive admission examinations for the master’s programme [M.P.Ed.] at the university was denied admission contrary to Tripathi’s belief of his academic skills and his performance in the examination. I am informed that suspecting foul play Tripathi requested an inquiry into his examination results and it is alleged that in the inquiry it was found that the university was denying admission to Tripathi to seek vengeance against him. I am also informed that the Assistant Registrar of the Central Information Commission has ordered the university to immediately admit Tripathi for the course which he was qualified to join and also asked the university authorities not to victimize any student who exercise his right for information against the university.

I am concerned to know that inspite of all these, the university has denied admission to Tripathi and the reason for the death of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai still remains a mystery.

I therefore urge you to immediately inquire into this case and ensure the following:

1. That the report of inquiry conducted into the death of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai is provided to Mr.  Djhananjay Tripathi in compliance with the orders of the Central Information Commission;

2. That Mr. Djhananjay Tripathi is admitted into the course that he has applied for at the Banaras Hindu University in accordance with the order issued against the university by the Assistant Registrar of the Central Information Commission;

3. That the university takes immediate action against the corrupt and negligent officers mentioned in the report concerning the death of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai and;

4. That the officers responsible for denying admission to Mr. Djhananjay Tripathi are punished.

Yours sincerely,




Dear  Sir ,

INDIA: A foreigner raped by the officers of the Border Security Force stationed at the Indo-bangladesh border in Murshidabad district of West Bengal

Name of the victim:
Ms. Asha Begum, aged 19 years, daughter of Saral Hossain, residing at Lakshmipur, Rajpara, Rajsahi district, Bangladesh [the victim is currently held in judicial custody at the Lalbagh Prison in Murshidabad district, West Bengal]
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Officers of the Border Security Force of the `G’ Company attached to the 90 Battalion of the Border Security Force stationed at I & II Outpost of the Border Security Force at Kargil village, Murshidabad district, West Bengal
2. The Officer-in-Charge of the Raninagar Police Station, Murshidabad district,
West Bengal
3. Dr. S. B. Kanjilal, Medical Officer, Baharampur District Hospital, Baharampur, Murshidabad district, West Bengal
Date and place of Incident: On 7 July 2007

I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the case of Ms. Asha, a victim of rape currently detained at the Lalbagh Prison in Murshidabad in connection with Crime 109/2006 of the Raninagar Police Station.

I am informed that Asha was taken into custody by the Border Security Force (BSF) officers stationed at I & II Outpost of the Border Security Force at Kargil village, Murshidabad district on June 7, 2007 at about 6.45pm. I am informed that Asha was taken into custody along with one Ms. Champa who was also taken into custody by the BSF while they were trying to cross from Bangladesh to India. I am informed that both of them are citizens of Bangladesh, who were trying to sneak into India.

I am informed that the BSF officer later raped Asha within hours after she was taken into custody, which was discovered immediately by the superior officers of the BSF from the intelligence branch, who happened to visit the outpost on the same day. I am concerned to know that the victim, though was immediately taken to the Raninagar Police Station was refused to be taken in by the police officers at the station and also refused to be given medical attention. Later the victim had to return to the BSF camp.

The next day when the victim was produced at the police station, the Senior Divisional Police Officer from Domkal Mr. Mohan Banshi Haldar, ordered the victim to be produced at the Beharampur District Hospital for medical examination. It is alleged that Dr. S. B. Kanjilal, the medical officer at the hospital under pressure from the BSF and the police declared that Asha was not raped after a physical examination. I am surprised to know that a medical doctor without resorting to any forensic laboratory examination, merely by physically examining the victim has given such a verdict.

I am informed that the victim is not an accused charged with offences under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 is being kept in judicial custody. I am also informed that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has adjourned the case to be taken up on July 4, 2007 for the consideration of the victim’s complaint regarding rape and the manner in which her complaint was treated by the Raninagar police.

I am surprised to know that inspite of several complaints against the manner in which the BSF treat suspects and ordinary people in Murshidabad and along the Indo-Bangladesh border, no action whatsoever has been taken against these officers on complaints of abuse of authority or their  involvement in criminal activities as it happened in this case.

I therefore urge you to immediately intervene in this case and ensure that the BSF officer who raped Asha is brought to justice. I also request you to take appropriate action so that the dereliction of duty by the police officers at the Raninagar Police Station who refused to record Asha’s complaint is immediately inquired into. I also request you to inquire into the manner in which Dr. S. B. Kanjilal examined the victim and take appropriate action against the doctor if he is found guilty of willful neglect of duty.

Your’s sincerely,



Comments on the Model Police Act 2006 circulated by the Police Act Drafting Committee of Ministry of Home Affairs

– By S R Sankaran IAS (Rtd)
Former Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India

1. General – Scope of a Police Act
It is to be recognized that the .Police Act 1861 is not the sole or only lawin relation to police functions .The maintenance of public order and the criminal justice system are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act as well as a large number of special legislations including special laws including Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA, now repealed ) or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (in which many of the provisions of repealed POTA have been incorporated ) or Control of Organized Crimes Act (COCA) as in Maharashtra or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, apart from the provisions of the Indian Constitution itself .In addition to the laws, there are Police Regulations (e.g. PRB in West Bengal) and Police Manuals (e.g. Tamil Nadu) in every state laying down clear guidelines and instructions in regard to the exercise of police powers and duties .The Police Act 1861 is no doubt 150 years old ;but to trace the reason for all the inadequacies and shortcomings in policing to the Police Act 1861 merely on the ground of its antiquity will be an incorrect understanding of policing in a democratic society .In fact, the1861 Act by itself does not stand in the way of proper and efficient functioning of police as a humane institution at the service of the people.

2. Model Police Act 2006 – Comments on Approach and Scope
The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration, much of which cannot and need not be incorporated in a statute by Parliament . There are too many details of administration. Some of the sections of this nature which are illustrative of this are amenities in police stations (Section 12(5)), non-statutory activities such as technical and support services (Section 17), state police academies (Section 18),organization of research (Section 19 )qualification for recruitment (Section 25), service conditions (Section 26) ),financial management ( Section56), standardisation of forensic aids (8.15) training policy, disciplinary actions, welfare and grievance redressal or working hours .

These are not normally laid down instatutes .Apart from the unnecessary need for making a statute of Parliament or State legislature for a minor issues such as imposing punishment on police personnel (or for that matter any government servant ), inclusion of such details in an Act will make it operationally difficult .Any change or modification will necessitate an amendment of the law by Parliament or State legislature .What should be part of a manual of administrative instructions have been brought into the law .The Act often reads like an office memorandum of the Government !

The Act should be confined to major issues and concepts of policy such as rule of law, statutory duties, functions and responsibilities or accountability . . Even here, some of the details such as composition of a Committee can be best left to Rules. In trying to achieve autonomy in the functioning of police, the Act seeks to provide privileged position to the police personnel (specially the Director General of Police), without adequate accountability and mechanism for redressal against arbitrary actions . There are, no doubt, some institutional mechanisms that are envisaged but they are all, if fully analysed, only advisory in nature. The Act as worded will only result in furthering the authoritarian nature of policing .

The functioning of the police must be looked at from the point of view of the people and not just from the point of view of the government or the police .The emphasis must be on police as service with duties and accountability on the part of the police; not more power and authority. As the police is the most visible symbol of State authority and is clothed with wide ranging powers to use force, including even causing of death in relation to life and liberty of citizens, police functioning naturally becomes central to human rights. The crucial fact is that the police is the legally sanctioned coercive arm of the Government and has the authority to interfere with the life and liberty of people. This distinguishes police from other agencies of the State and it is this feature that requires proximate accountability not only to its own departmental hierarchy but non police authorities (as in UK) .Any autonomy should be linked to accountability and close and immediate supervision. The police cannot become a “State within a State” .It has necessarily to function under the lawful control of the State /Central Government. At the district level it has to function as part of the District Administration.

The Model Act exhibits alack of trust in the bona fides of people and even the institutions of State, other than police . As police functioning directly interferes with life and liberty of people, there is need for immediate and proximate accountability and mechanisms for correction . The judicial machinery is distant and formal. Hence, there must be within the executive, an immediately available corrective mechanism other than the hierarchy of police . This is provided usually by the executive magistracy; but the Model Act is unmindful of this need .

The Model Act is department oriented rather than people oriented, in spite of the pronouncements in the Preamble.

2. Chapter wise and Section wise observations

This has been very well expressed .But the word “empower ” may be avoided . It is not correct to think of power . Instead a term like “confer legal authority ” may be used .

Chapter II
It is indeed a very welcome departure from the traditional concept of force that police is referred to as service instead of force .


The reference to pay and allowances is unnecessary in a statute .This is to be taken into account by Pay Commissions set up from time to time. If this is put into a law by parliament or State legislature, there will be similar claims by many other wings of government to have similar statutes

Section 5(2)
Section 5(2) is peremptory .To say that no officer senior or equivalent in rank to the incumbent Director General should be posted to any position within the police organization cannot become part of a law .It can be an administrative convention, at best The DGP can be first among equals .He can even supersede seniors in the process of getting selected. But to say that all others should move outside police organization is impossible and inappropriate. The proviso as well as the main provision are uncalled for in a statute ..This will also be administratively impossible when the selection of the DGP is to be done from among the three senior most persons as proposed. For example, if the third person in the order among the three gets selected, the two seniors have to go out of the police oganisation itself ! This will be impracticable

Section 2.6
The method of selection cannot be written into law. The criteria for selection, particularly 2(b) such as gradings are out of place in a law.

Fixed tenure of two years is a longstanding need which is administratively welcome ; but it hinges crucially on the quality of selection . In my view, there is no need to select persons with a limited service left before retirement and give a fixed tenure. If the retirement age is 60 years, it should be adhered to for all, particularly for police, as physical fitness is an essential requirement . It is better to make the selection from among the persons with two years of service before retirement.

All these can be more appropriately incorporated in administrative instructions and not in law.

Section 2.5
This is necessary .But there is no need to put it into law .

Section 2.9 to 2.12
These relate to creation of range, district, circle, police station etc.

There is no need to mention about the amenities etc in the law

Section 2.13
The minimum fixed tenure concept has been extended up to the level of SHO, Circle Officer SDPO and SP .There is also a maximum of three years prescribed unlike in the case of DGP .It is not possible or appropriate to provide in law for fixed tenure at every level . It will be impracticable .It may also result in “petty tyrannies ” at operational levels . (Looking at it from peoples point of view and not the departments view, there are a number of cases where common people wish that some officers known for their undesirable activities are transferred quickly in the hope that some better person might arrive ).While fixed tenure will have significance at higher levels, the principle cannot be extended to every post at every level

Section 14
This is an important provision which brings in the District Magistrate into this Act.

Section 4 of thePolice Act 1861 refers to general control and direction of the District Magistrate .The practices in States vary . The relationship betweenpolice and District Magistrate has been debatedfor longand wasalso gone into great detail by the Police Commission in Chapter XXXIX of its report .The Police Commission held the view that while police should have a distinct identity and operational independence, the role of the District Magistrate has to be recognised and respected by the police .

As police are vested with authority over life and liberty of people, an immediate and close non police general supervision is necessary and in this view, the provision in the Police Act 1861be retained It need not be viewed as subordination. It is somewhat akin to relationship with judiciary.

While the Model Actappears to follow the suggestion of Police Commission, the Police Commission draft visualizedthat the District Magistrate *”call for a report regarding the steps taken by the police or other agency to deal with the situation and give such directions in respect of the matter as are considered necessary by him(the District Magistrate ) to the police and the concerned agency “.

Section 14(2) of the Model Act waters down the role of the District magistrate.. The reference to other heads of the Departments in this act is unnecessary and uncalled for .There is no need to repeat “for the purpose of coordination ” or “to achieve the objective of coordination ” in the Section . All these seem to spring from a reluctanceto accept the role of theDistrict Magistrate .

Section 14(3) is completely out of place . It seems strange that the District Magistrate is to ensure assistance to the Superintendent of Police, rather than the Superintendent of Police assisting the District Magistrate ! This seems to be misconceived . Even without this provision, the District Magistrate as the head of the district will play this role and there is no need for this in the Police Act .

Section 15
The concept of Railway police itself requires a rethinking .In any case it need not be written into law. There is need to integrate railway police into the District Police

Section .16
This may not have to be incorporatedin the law .
On the other hand, as recommended by Police Commission, the law should lay down the limits to intelligence gathering so that intelligence agencies do not get involved in party politics . There have been many well-known instances of this nature both in States as well as Centre.

Sections17 to 19
While the ideas are welcome, there is no need to provide for them in the law

Section 22
The concept of special Police Officer is provided for in Section 17 of the1861 Act .But this was intended for extraordinary circumstances, with the permission of magistracy and from the residents in the neighbourhood .In other words, it was intended to enlist members of the local community in special cases of disturbance to peace in an area .But Section 22 makes it a regular feature, with an age limit of 18 and 50 years without any relation to the special circumstances and local community. In the context of having a properly motivated and well trained police personnel, this becomes anout moded concept . As these special police officersare to have the same powers privileges and immunities, any such provision as a regular feature of policingwill only result in an army ofillequipped personnel for the task of performing police functions . This Section is inappropriate

Chapter III

Section 24
The idea of Civil Police Officer Gr II as the lowest rank in civil police is to ensure efficiency dignity and status at this cutting edge level .But this cannot be done by merely changing the nomenclature. In fact the term constable, as used in countries like UK has acquired considerable dignity.

Section 25
These are a set of recruitment rules and procedure . It does not seem appropriate that such provisions form part of a parliamentary legislation .Nor is there any need to do so .This can be done by administrative instructions or separate recruitment rules.

The provision in 26(5) that the Director General of Police should endeavour to outsource noncore police functions is out of place in a Police Act.

Chapter V

Section 39
The superintendence of police rightly vests in the State Government as police or for that matter any department cannot become a state within a state .Of the three Constitutional branches -Legislature, Judiciary and Executive -police is part of the Executive . Section 39(2) is not needed, as it has already been stated that the State Government has the responsibility to ensure an efficient effective responsive and accountable police

Section 40
The concept of strategic policing plan is innovative .There is however no need to stipulate in law that inputs will be received from Superintendents of Police .In fact, such plans at the district level should be drawn up jointly by the Superintendents of Police and the District Magistrates together, in public interest, in consultation with the community . It is necessary that the District Magistrate is involved in this

Section 41 to 50
It is observed that the State Police Board will frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, effective, responsive and accountable policing; identify performance indicators ; review and evaluate performance .
The details of the composition of panel, method, ineligibility, expenses etc may be left to the Rules
It may not be appropriate for this board to prepare panels for the rank of Director Generals of Police, as this is a policy making body, including the Leader of the Opposition, retired judges and other nonpolitical persons .The panel for Director General of Police must be prepared by a separate selection committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Personnel Secretary and the Home Secretary in the same manner as the selection of the Director of CBI is done .

Section 51
The proviso at the end is strange . The State government undoubtedly should act according to law, rules and regulations; but by stating that the Government cannot intervene in the exercise of powers of administration by not only DGP but also any authorized officer, the police is privileged above Government itself and it assumes that the police authorities always act lawfully .Though unlawful political interference is unwelcome, Government cannot be devalued in this manner .This will result in unbridled powers to police .This proviso should be deleted

Section 53 to 56
It is not necessary to incorporate these in law. Administrative instructions should be adequate

Chapter VI
This Chapter on the whole is a welcome change moving on from power and authority to Role and Functions; Duties; Social responsibility as well as Emergency duties . The items in the Code of Conduct for police officers issued by the home ministry can be incorporated in a suitable manner .

Chapter VII

Sections 61 to 64
While police stations should be properly organized, the matters of details regarding accommodation, amenities etc cannot be written into law .They will form part of a manual of instructions .It is also strange that Section 62 talks of security of a police station though actually a Police station is expected to provide security to people .This soundsincongruous

Section 68 to 84
This introduces the concept of Village Guard for each village, provided with honorarium and treated as a public servant with training and proper identification .In effect, every village will have a policeman, in addition to the police personnel of the StationThere will also be Village Defence Parties with about 15 members with training and identification with expenses being provided to them .All these give the impression that there will be practically about 10 -15police agents in each village ..We will thus be converting each village into a virtual police station .This is not necessary or desirable

There is no reference at all to the elected Panchayats at village level.The appropriate course of action will be to entrust the function of Village Defence Partyto the Panchayat in a suitable manner and utilize the services of the Panchayat Secretary or the Village Officer to assist the police . There is need to bring village policing within the purview of the Panchayat

Chapter VIII

Section 87
The establishment of Commissionerate system need not be mandatory. Instead of the word “shall”., the word `may” may be used .

Section 88(4)
There is no need to provide for this in law

Section 97
This relates to powers of externment . Such a power does exist in some of the present enactments relating to Commissionerates; but it is of doubtful validity. This should be deleted

Section 103 and 104
These provisions are unnecessary .They give the impression that police is the central authority and all other agencies are to coordinate with them . The police must function as part of the district or local administration .

Section 105
It is not clear how the operation of an Act can be assigned to the Commissioner .Some of them require an independent quasijudicial assessment. It is presumed that this has been based on Police Commission draft Section 83). But in the present draft this is covered by 6.3 (a) .This Section may be deleted

Chapter IX

Section 112 to 118 and Section 121
This introduces a new concept of Special Security Zones to be declared by Union Government with the concurrence of the State Government .There is a reference to appropriate police structure, integrated mechanism and standard operating procedure The entire concept is vague and regressive . .This seems to be modelled on declaring areas as disturbed areas . Such provisions cannot be part of a Police Act .There are other legislations such a Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or Disturbed Areas Act etc. These provisions may be deleted .

Chapters X
While welcome, these are matters of detail .It is not appropriate that they should form part of law .Normally they are incorporated in police manuals

Chapter Xi and XII
This should form part of Training Manual and Discipline Rules and not a Central or State Act

Chapter XIII
This is an important Chapter as it deals with accountability .But unfortunately, the mechanisms envisaged are very weak and ineffective as shown below

Section 159 and 160
The intention is to set up a Police Accountability Commission consisting of a retired High Court Judge, retired DGP of another state, retired administrator from another state, etc. The expectation that persons from other States will be necessarily more objective does not stand to reason ; it does not seem to apply to the retired judge !

Section 161 to 165
These deal with procedures of appointment, removal etc

Section 167 to 171
These set out the powers and functions .The provision is that the Commission shall enquire into allegations of serious misconduct either suo motu or on complaint .”Serious misconduct” has been defined in the explanation as any act or omission that lead to or amounts to death in police custody ; grievous hurt ;rape or attempt ;malicious arrest or detention .A proviso has been added that for malicious arrest or malicious detention, prima facie satisfaction is needed .The Commission may also enquire into cases referred by DGP and also monitor status of departmental enquiries or action

As seen from Section 171, the Commission upon completion of enquiry is to communicate its findings to the DGP with a direction to register an FIR and / or initiate departmental action .The Commission is also to give an opportunity to DGP to present department’s view The Commission though highsounding in nameis nothing more than a body which, at the end of its deliberations, will ask the DGP to register an FIR or take departmental action and that too after giving various opportunities ! Naturally the FIR and the departmental enquiry will take their own course according to law and established procedures .

The statements recorded by the Commission also have only limited value under 169 .The Commission will only become a shield for the culprit personnel .It has no teeth at all .The entire arrangement is flawed and will serve little purpose .If the serious misconduct is death in police custody or rape etc, the proper course is to register an FIR straightaway and investigate by a special agency such as CID or Corps of Detectives .In fact, it is incumbent under law to do so .Merely because the offender is a police personnel, he/she can not enjoy any immunity or seek special procedure .

Section 173 to 175
The District Accountability Authority appears to have no real function at all except to forward complaints of serious misconduct / misconduct and monitor them . This is hardly any function and will only be a waste of effort. The Authority as envisaged is just a forwarding authority, just a post office . It can best can give advise. The name “accountability authority” is again high sounding . But there is hardly any accountability that is enforced and there is no authority whatsoever

Section 179
This provision seems unnecessary particularly in view of the fact that the commission or authority provide little remedy.

Chapter XIV
The provisions for welfare, working hours etc need not come into a parliamentary legislation .They are best incorporated in rules or manuals

Chapter XV

Section 193 and Section 201
This creates offences by public . Moreover, 201(2) makes all these cognizable i.e., arrest without a warrant .This cannot be done by Police Act .It has to be part of IPC or someother law

Section 205
This relates to summary disposal by Court .This should form part of Cr PC not a Police Act


Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE ………. 570017INDIA……………………cell :09341820313
home page :,, , ,,
contact :  ,


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s