It is abnoxious to ‘beat a policeman who is doing his duty”‘. Whether it is a traffic constable doing his duty
or beaten by a politician or Police Women being Molested even in Mumbai.
All these things go a long way in demoralizing the police force. In days when rape of Girl Child is happening in all cities of India, don’t be surprised if someday Mother or Sister of your friend is teased and you need to accompany him to the police station to take help of The Policeman.
What has happened is, that Indian Police has become a puppet, with his transfer and promotions in the hands of politicians many of whom are themselves involved in crimes.
The Police has to be a dedicated force without any interference. They have to be trained in forensic sciences and also be well paid to avoid any corruption. If the Rape accused are convicted then only can the law punish them , this will lead to fear of law in such people.
We need to have a professional Police Force. They have to be well trained, accountable and respected.
Attached is a article on Police reforms . The ONLY WAY TO LIVE SAFELY IS TO FREE THE POLICE.
Time to reform police force
by: Joginder Singh
Police reforms in India have been the subject of discussion right from the day it was passed and implemented in 1861. The founder of British Police, Robert Peel, the then British Prime Minister, propounded the following nine basic principles to govern all police actions:
To prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment
To recognise that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
To recognise that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of law
To recognise that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objective
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and good humour; and, by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force, which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence.
To recognise the need for strict adherence to police executive functions and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”
Our police force, however, did not come up to the expectation of both the Government and people even during British rule. The Police Commission (1901-03) was set up to look into its working and suggest reforms. It said, “There can be no doubt that the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the Government and that radical reforms are urgently necessary.” The National Police Commission of 1977-81, set up under the Chairmanship of late Governor Dharma Vira, observed: “What the Police Commission said in 1903 appears more or less equally applicable to the conditions obtaining today.”
Studies after studies and commissions after commissions have highlighted the problems affecting the police. Professor David H Bayley has aptly summed it up by saying, “In India today, a dual system of criminal justice has grown, the one of the law and the other of politics. With respect at least to the police, decisions made by the police officials about the application of law are frequently subject to partisan review or direction by the elected representatives. The autonomy of the police officials in specific and routine application of law has been curtailed. This is not only true of law and order situations, but people accused of crimes have got into the habit of appealing to political figures for remission from the law.”
“Police officials, throughout India, have grown accustomed to calculating the likely political effect of any enforcement action they contemplate. Fearing for their careers and especially their postings, they have become anxious and cynical. The frame, upon which justice hinges, has been undermined by the rules of politics. Supervision in the name of democracy has eroded the foundations upon which the impartiality depends in a criminal justice system,” added Prof Bayley.
In a landmark judgement on police reforms, the Supreme Court, on September 22, 2006, asked the State Governments to set up state security commission by December 31. It wanted DGPs to be selected from a panel of three officers to be finalised by the UPSC. Those who are selected must get a two-year term. The apex court also wanted police officers on operational duties in the field to have a minimum tenure of two years.
There should be separate investigation and law and order duties. Police Establishment Board must decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of subordinate officers. Also, the police complaints authority at district and State levels has to hear complaints from the public.
Almost all the State Governments have filed affidavits either asking for more time or pleading that under the Constitution, law and order is a State subject and this order would go against the constitutional provisions. Some States have also sought more time from the apex court to bring in the desired changes. Police reforms, particularly the recommendations that the DGPs have a two-year fixed tenure and that they be chosen from a panel of officers drawn up by the UPSC have been opposed by most States.
Meanwhile, the Union Government, in its affidavit, has stated that it constituted, on January 2, a Committee on National Security and Police Welfare, which would have the Union Home Minister as its Chairperson for recommending the names of chiefs to be appointed to various Central police organisations.
Thus, the Governments are mostly reluctant to bring about the much-needed changes to reform the police. Neither would they do it themselves, nor would carry out the orders of the apex court, which has only tried to provide a level-playing field to all citizens and ensure that the fundamental right to equality is observed both in letter and spirit. It is time to remind them that it is in the interest of all that the police in India are reformed.
Source: Bharat Rakshak
