THE CVC BILL- UNDERMINING THE SPIRIT OF LAW
Ever since the hawala case judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on December 18,1997,consistent attempts have been made to see that the judgment is not implemented fully and is defeated in its basic purpose. The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999 recommended by the Joint Committee of Parliament is another attempt in the same direction.
The Supreme Court’s judgment had declared the single directive null and void. The single directive was a set of executive instructions issued by the central government,prohibiting the CBI from undertaking any inquiry or investigation against any officer of the rank of joint secretary and above in the central government, including those in public sector undertakings and nationalized banks without the prior sanction of the head of the department.
The court found it bad in law on two grounds. It required a police agency to seek
permission from the executive to initiate investigations into a criminal offence, which is contrary to the law. Second, it violated the canon of equality in the application of the law. The committee’s bill seeks to infract these basic principles of legal jurisprudence by resurrecting the single directive, even though the original bill referred to the committee did not have any clause about the single directive.
The exemption extended to the senior officers from even being inquired into by the CBI without the government’s permission is now being accorded legal sanctity. Earlier (before it was declared null and void by the Supreme Court), it was based only on executive instructions.
The committee has tried to justify this restoration of single directive on the ground that “no protection is available to the persons at the decision-making level”. Protection against prosecution without the sanction of the government is already available to all public servants under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The committee wants to provide protection even at the initial stage of conducting any inquiry or investigation into an allegation of corruption against senior officers. The implications of providing this type of impunity have been spelt out in the dissenting note of a member of the committee, Kuldip Nayar, who is in the Rajya Sabha. According to him, the pliable public servants “who carry out the errands of the political masters will go scot-free” and “corrupt officers will rule the roost due to their proximity to the seats of power.”
The committee’s bill has greater potential for mischief than what was attempted earlier through the Central Vigilance Ordinance of 1998. The ordinance had at least prescribed that approval prior to undertaking any inquiry or investigation against officers of the rank of joint secretary and above would have to be obtained by the CBI from the CVC. The committee’s bill lays down that this approval would have to be obtained from the central government.
The Supreme Court had directed that the Central Vigilance Commission should be
entrusted with the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the functioning of the CBI. The bill prescribes that the commission shall exercise superintendence over the functioning of only the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it related to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only. This means that there will be a system of dual control over the CBI-one exercised by the CVC in respect of corruption cases only and the other by the central government in respect of its other work. Thus, the committee’s bill defeats the basic purpose of the Supreme Court’s judgment of insulating the CBI fully from illegitimate and undesirable influences exerted by politicians and bureaucrats.
The scope for the CVC to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the CBI even in respect of its work on corruption has been further curtailed by restricting the definition of the word ‘public servant’ to mean only civil servants of certain categories. As per clause 8 (1)(a) of the committee’s bill, the CVC’s superintendence would only be in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by members of the all-India services in connection with the affairs of the Union and group ‘A’ officers of the central government and such level of officers of the corporations, companies, societies and other local authorities owned or controlled by the central government.
In other words, superintendence over the work of the CBI in respect of corruption
offences committed by other categories of public servants as defined in Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption committee by other categories of public servants as defined in Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, including politicians, would remain out of the purview of the CVC’s charter of responsibilities. This is another method by which the purpose of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the hawala case is sought to be defeated.
The Supreme Court’s judgment contained other important directions, like the constitution of a nodal agency to monitor and coordinate action to be taken in cases elated to the “politico-bureaucrat-criminal nexus”; improving the functioning of the prosecution machinery, including the setting up of a prosecution agency similar to the one in the UK; providing to the general public “feedback on investigations an information for redress of genuine grievances” etc. The three ordinances and the two bills drafted by the government did not have any provisions relating to these issues. The committee’s bill is also silent on these issues. The public, in fact has no idea at all about action taken by the government, if any, to implement these important directions of the court or even about the government’s intentions to do so.
Therefore, we are back to square one. The judgment of the highest court of the country in one of the most important criminal cases decided by it since Independence remains unimplemented even after the expiry of three years since it was delivered. We can only conclude that systematic and deliberate efforts have been made to subvert or thwart the judgment.
(Published in the Times of India, 26/12/00)
Tuesday, December 26, 2000
Wednesday, August 30, 2000
POLICE TRAINING IN ETHICS
TRAINING POLICE PERSONNEL OF LOWER RANKS IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND ETHICS
The subject of police training in this country has been reviewed from time to time by various expert bodies. Despite this, the state of police training in the country is known to be poor. The police training institutions in this country are known to be suffering from a host of infirmities and deficiencies. A survey of 100 out of 145 police training institutions in the country done by the Bureau of Police Research and Development in June 1995 revealed a dismal picture. 23 institutions were functioning without class rooms; 18 without black boards, 16 without overhead projectors; 57 without conference rooms, 76 without seminar or assembly halls; 20 without library; 70 without auditorium; 93 without simulation facilities; 95 without forensic science units; 72 without computers; and 4 did not have even lavatory facilities. The staff posted in the police training institutions is not of the desired standards and they are short of budget. There has been hardly any significant improvement since then.
More than lack of infrastructure and other facilities, it is the culture of the training institutions, which is only a reflection of the culture of the police organisation as a whole, that fails to produce a community friendly policeman. The existing system is aimed at developing a militaristic pattern of policing, which tries to control crime and law and order disturbances, without being sensitive to the requirements of the community.
The police training must change this culture. Besides introducing other needed improvements, the training syllabus for lower ranks must be reviewed and revised. It is important that the training programme stresses the need to impart proper and adequate training in human rights and in ethics to police personnel. The present arrangements are not satisfactory in this respect.
The BPR&D’s literature shows that the duration of the Basic Training course for Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Civil Police is 12 months. Out of a total number of 1458 periods kept for indoor instructions, 131 periods are allotted to Module IV, which is on “Human Behaviour, Police Attitude, Police Image and Police Public Relations.” This Module consists of eight capsules, one of which is on “ Human Rights and Civil Liberties.” The subjects covered under this capsule are: “1) International Law and mechanism on protection of human rights. 2) Provisions of the Indian Constitution on human rights and provisions in various other laws. 3) Why human rights are fundamental in a democratic society? 4) Human rights organisations at international, national and local levels and their activities.”
The BPR&D’s booklet does not indicate the number of periods allotted to each capsule. The average number of periods allotted to each capsule works out to about 16 periods. Only 16 out of 1458 periods are allotted to teaching the four subjects mentioned above. This means that slightly less than 1.1 % of the total indoor training time is spent on teaching human rights subjects. The same is true of syllabus prescribed for the Constables of the Civil Police. Out of 1398 periods of indoor training, only 14 are devoted to the Capsule on Human Rights and Civil Liberty.
Thus time allotted for Human Rights training and course contents are highly inadequate. It is no wonder that the awareness and attitudes of police personnel towards human rights issues leave a lot to be desired. Recently, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an international NGO mandated to ensure the practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth countries, did a survey of human rights awareness and attitudes of officers of the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Inspector of Police in a couple of states. The study revealed three things- (1) General awareness of police officers about basic human rights instruments, international as well as national, is poor. (2) Specific work related awareness of human rights issues is good, but there are some gaps here too. (3) Attitudes towards human rights are wrong and are at the root of the problem.
Human Rights training can not be regarded as a mere add-on to the existing syllabus; it must be treated as the core of the training programme for all ranks. There is a common perception amongst the police personnel that human rights are an encumbrance, an obstacle to effective policing. An important aim of the training programme should be to change this perception.
Appropriate training methods will have to be designed for the lessons to go home. Methods will have to be different for different categories of officers. Class room methods will have to be varied and include not only ‘chalk and talk’ but also role plays, exercises, discussions and video presentations. The simple method of sending police trainees as decoy complainants to the police stations to lodge complaints done as a part of an experiment being conducted by the UNDP in the country is reported to have brought about significant changes in their attitudes. Novel methods like these will be more effective than conventional methods of training
Ethics is another highly neglected area of police training in this country. The syllabus of basic training course for Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub- Inspectors of Civil Police shows that there is a capsule on “Human Values and Moral Science” This again is one of the eight capsules comprising the Module on “Human Behaviour, Police Attitude, Police Image and Police Public Relations” The average number of periods allotted to this subject is also 16 periods. The BPR&D’s booklet of training courses does not give the break-up of subjects covered under this capsule. There is a capsule on “ Ethics in Law Enforcement & Principles of Police Misconduct” in the basic training course for the Constables of the Civil Police too. 15 out of a total of 1398 indoor training periods are slotted for this capsule, under which the subjects taught are: (1)What is Ethics? (2) Ethics and Law Enforcement. (3) Good Manners & Etiquette.
This important subject is being neglected not only in terms of time allotted to it but also in terms of course contents. Teaching policemen good manners and etiquette is needed, but it is not necessary that this will lead to ethical policing Some highly corrupt police officers are known to have been men with great manners and etiquette. Training in Ethics should also not be confused, as is generally done, with delivering of moral sermons based on teachings of religious leaders to trainees. Such training rarely proves effective.
Police Ethics should be integrated into training curriculum of different ranks not as a set of moral code or instructions, but as a set of issues relating to abuse of powers by police and the implications of abuse or misuse of powers. The training programme must address itself to the root causes of unethical conduct and teach strategies to deal with them. Training must be imparted by those who have credibility with the trainees.
The subject of police training in this country has been reviewed from time to time by various expert bodies. Despite this, the state of police training in the country is known to be poor. The police training institutions in this country are known to be suffering from a host of infirmities and deficiencies. A survey of 100 out of 145 police training institutions in the country done by the Bureau of Police Research and Development in June 1995 revealed a dismal picture. 23 institutions were functioning without class rooms; 18 without black boards, 16 without overhead projectors; 57 without conference rooms, 76 without seminar or assembly halls; 20 without library; 70 without auditorium; 93 without simulation facilities; 95 without forensic science units; 72 without computers; and 4 did not have even lavatory facilities. The staff posted in the police training institutions is not of the desired standards and they are short of budget. There has been hardly any significant improvement since then.
More than lack of infrastructure and other facilities, it is the culture of the training institutions, which is only a reflection of the culture of the police organisation as a whole, that fails to produce a community friendly policeman. The existing system is aimed at developing a militaristic pattern of policing, which tries to control crime and law and order disturbances, without being sensitive to the requirements of the community.
The police training must change this culture. Besides introducing other needed improvements, the training syllabus for lower ranks must be reviewed and revised. It is important that the training programme stresses the need to impart proper and adequate training in human rights and in ethics to police personnel. The present arrangements are not satisfactory in this respect.
The BPR&D’s literature shows that the duration of the Basic Training course for Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Civil Police is 12 months. Out of a total number of 1458 periods kept for indoor instructions, 131 periods are allotted to Module IV, which is on “Human Behaviour, Police Attitude, Police Image and Police Public Relations.” This Module consists of eight capsules, one of which is on “ Human Rights and Civil Liberties.” The subjects covered under this capsule are: “1) International Law and mechanism on protection of human rights. 2) Provisions of the Indian Constitution on human rights and provisions in various other laws. 3) Why human rights are fundamental in a democratic society? 4) Human rights organisations at international, national and local levels and their activities.”
The BPR&D’s booklet does not indicate the number of periods allotted to each capsule. The average number of periods allotted to each capsule works out to about 16 periods. Only 16 out of 1458 periods are allotted to teaching the four subjects mentioned above. This means that slightly less than 1.1 % of the total indoor training time is spent on teaching human rights subjects. The same is true of syllabus prescribed for the Constables of the Civil Police. Out of 1398 periods of indoor training, only 14 are devoted to the Capsule on Human Rights and Civil Liberty.
Thus time allotted for Human Rights training and course contents are highly inadequate. It is no wonder that the awareness and attitudes of police personnel towards human rights issues leave a lot to be desired. Recently, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an international NGO mandated to ensure the practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth countries, did a survey of human rights awareness and attitudes of officers of the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Inspector of Police in a couple of states. The study revealed three things- (1) General awareness of police officers about basic human rights instruments, international as well as national, is poor. (2) Specific work related awareness of human rights issues is good, but there are some gaps here too. (3) Attitudes towards human rights are wrong and are at the root of the problem.
Human Rights training can not be regarded as a mere add-on to the existing syllabus; it must be treated as the core of the training programme for all ranks. There is a common perception amongst the police personnel that human rights are an encumbrance, an obstacle to effective policing. An important aim of the training programme should be to change this perception.
Appropriate training methods will have to be designed for the lessons to go home. Methods will have to be different for different categories of officers. Class room methods will have to be varied and include not only ‘chalk and talk’ but also role plays, exercises, discussions and video presentations. The simple method of sending police trainees as decoy complainants to the police stations to lodge complaints done as a part of an experiment being conducted by the UNDP in the country is reported to have brought about significant changes in their attitudes. Novel methods like these will be more effective than conventional methods of training
Ethics is another highly neglected area of police training in this country. The syllabus of basic training course for Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub- Inspectors of Civil Police shows that there is a capsule on “Human Values and Moral Science” This again is one of the eight capsules comprising the Module on “Human Behaviour, Police Attitude, Police Image and Police Public Relations” The average number of periods allotted to this subject is also 16 periods. The BPR&D’s booklet of training courses does not give the break-up of subjects covered under this capsule. There is a capsule on “ Ethics in Law Enforcement & Principles of Police Misconduct” in the basic training course for the Constables of the Civil Police too. 15 out of a total of 1398 indoor training periods are slotted for this capsule, under which the subjects taught are: (1)What is Ethics? (2) Ethics and Law Enforcement. (3) Good Manners & Etiquette.
This important subject is being neglected not only in terms of time allotted to it but also in terms of course contents. Teaching policemen good manners and etiquette is needed, but it is not necessary that this will lead to ethical policing Some highly corrupt police officers are known to have been men with great manners and etiquette. Training in Ethics should also not be confused, as is generally done, with delivering of moral sermons based on teachings of religious leaders to trainees. Such training rarely proves effective.
Police Ethics should be integrated into training curriculum of different ranks not as a set of moral code or instructions, but as a set of issues relating to abuse of powers by police and the implications of abuse or misuse of powers. The training programme must address itself to the root causes of unethical conduct and teach strategies to deal with them. Training must be imparted by those who have credibility with the trainees.
Friday, August 25, 2000
POLICE DEVIANCE
POLICE DEVIANCE IN INDIA
There is ample evidence of increasing police deviance in India. The newspapers everyday report incidents of brutality, extortion and other crimes committed by police personnel in different parts of the country. A media scan entitled “ criminality amongst police personnel” done a couple of years ago by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an international NGO mandated to ensure practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth countries, revealed that there was considerable involvement of police personnel in committing crimes. Two findings of this scan were important. One, the police personnel were found to be involved in committing even heinous crimes, like murder, rape, robbery, extortion, grievous assault etc. Two, the involvement was confined not only to junior ranks; even seniors were involved.
The annual reports of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) contain details of cases of police atrocities investigated by them as well as statistics received from different States and Union Territories. The NHRC data shows that during the year 1998-99, the Commission admitted for disposal 183 complaints of ‘deaths in police custody’, 27 of ‘disappearance’, 436 of ‘illegal detention and arrest’, 634 of ‘false implication’ and 2252 of other ‘police excesses’. The majority of complaints received by the NHRC are against police personnel. Even the official statistics indicate that the number of public complaints received by the police departments against their employees is very high. The Crime in India, an annual publication of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of the Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India shows that during the year 1997, as many as 1,23,523 complaints against police were received from the public. The Union Home Minister, in reply to a question, informed the Rajya Sabha that the Delhi Police alone had received 34,947 complaints against the police officials during the year November 1997 to October 1998. Considering that the total strength of the Delhi Police is 57,497, it works out to a staggeringly high figure of about three complaints per five policemen.
What happens to these complaints? According to the Home Minister’s reply to the Parliament question, of the 33,384 complaints investigated by the Delhi Police, only 150 police personnel were punished. The remaining complaints were presumably found false or unsubstantiated. This brings into focus an important problem- who polices the police and how is it done?
In India, the police are policed mostly by themselves. The system has two major faults. One, it does not allow the entire dirt in the police department to come to the surface. The street cop culture, which is built around a strong sense of camaraderie and group loyalty amongst police personnel, ensures that all their sins of commission or omission do not come out in the open. Then there is the management cop culture, which sometimes tries to suppress incidents of misconduct by individual policemen because of apprehension that revelation of facts will demoralise the force, besides bringing it a bad name. Two, even where an inquiry into a citizen’s complaint against the police is done, it lacks credibility. The public distrust the police and feel that the department is incapable of conducting inquiries into public complaints in a fair and effective manner.
The citizens can, of course, go the courts to seek redress. This, however, is generally not done by them. Involvement in court cases is time consuming and costly. The courts are clogged with huge arrears of cases under trial. In a hard hitting speech delivered on the occasion of the golden jubilee celebrations of the Supreme Court in November last year, the Prime Minister of India mentioned that “the exasperating and increasingly expensive delays of the judicial system justly invite derision and contempt.” The system has lost its credibility.
AThe other institution to which the citizens can go with their complaints is the National Human Rights Commission, which has been in existence for about seven years now. The problem, however, is that an institution like this in a country of India’s size becomes too remote from the scene to be effective in many cases. A large number of police atrocities are committed in small towns and villages of India, where people are not aware either of Commission’s existence or of its procedures. Most State Governments have yet to set up their own Commissions. In addition, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, under which the National or State Human Rights Commissions are set up, is known to be weak and inadequate in its present form.
Elsewhere in most parts of the democratic world, special integrity cells within the police departments, police complaint boards, civilian complaint boards, ombudsman, community liaison committees etc have been set to ensure the existence of effective multiple mechanisms of police accountability. Civic oversight of, and community inputs, into policing are increasingly being accepted as the most essential requirements of democratic policing.
Policing in India has never been democratic. The Police as an organised institution in this country is about 139 years old. It was set up through the Police Act of 1861, which brought into existence a police force governed by the need of the colonial power to ensure their suzerainty over a subject population and to perpetuate their rule in the country. In this system, the police remained unaccountable to anyone except their own hierarchy and the executive. The idea of the police being a part of the community and accountable to it thus never grew in the Indian soil.
No attempt was ever made to change the system inherited from the colonial days. Though we adopted a democratic structure of polity, most institutions of governance and value systems have still remained feudal and colonial in character. The Police is a perfect example of such an institution. That is why it has been so easy for the politicians and bureaucrats to manipulate the organisation for their narrow partisan purposes. The situation has only become worse during the last few decades because of increasing criminalisation of politics. The worst victim of mafia politics and ignoble politicised policing that we see in this country is the common man, who really wants efficient and reliable policing, but is not being heard.
The need for police reforms is self evident and urgent. It is essential for the establishment of good governance, protection of human rights and economic progress. The reforms will not come on their own. Resistance to the idea of police reforms is deeply entrenched, as Mr Indrajit Gupta, the former Union Home Minister realised to his dismay and disappointment. Mr. Gupta in his famous letter of April 3, 1997 warned the Chief Ministers that the “day may not be far off when the judiciary may intervene decisively to force such socially desirable changes down the throat of the political executive.” More than the judiciary, it is the public, which will have to do so. As someone has rightly said: “The real protection of civil society can only come from its own creators: the people.”
There is ample evidence of increasing police deviance in India. The newspapers everyday report incidents of brutality, extortion and other crimes committed by police personnel in different parts of the country. A media scan entitled “ criminality amongst police personnel” done a couple of years ago by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an international NGO mandated to ensure practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth countries, revealed that there was considerable involvement of police personnel in committing crimes. Two findings of this scan were important. One, the police personnel were found to be involved in committing even heinous crimes, like murder, rape, robbery, extortion, grievous assault etc. Two, the involvement was confined not only to junior ranks; even seniors were involved.
The annual reports of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) contain details of cases of police atrocities investigated by them as well as statistics received from different States and Union Territories. The NHRC data shows that during the year 1998-99, the Commission admitted for disposal 183 complaints of ‘deaths in police custody’, 27 of ‘disappearance’, 436 of ‘illegal detention and arrest’, 634 of ‘false implication’ and 2252 of other ‘police excesses’. The majority of complaints received by the NHRC are against police personnel. Even the official statistics indicate that the number of public complaints received by the police departments against their employees is very high. The Crime in India, an annual publication of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of the Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India shows that during the year 1997, as many as 1,23,523 complaints against police were received from the public. The Union Home Minister, in reply to a question, informed the Rajya Sabha that the Delhi Police alone had received 34,947 complaints against the police officials during the year November 1997 to October 1998. Considering that the total strength of the Delhi Police is 57,497, it works out to a staggeringly high figure of about three complaints per five policemen.
What happens to these complaints? According to the Home Minister’s reply to the Parliament question, of the 33,384 complaints investigated by the Delhi Police, only 150 police personnel were punished. The remaining complaints were presumably found false or unsubstantiated. This brings into focus an important problem- who polices the police and how is it done?
In India, the police are policed mostly by themselves. The system has two major faults. One, it does not allow the entire dirt in the police department to come to the surface. The street cop culture, which is built around a strong sense of camaraderie and group loyalty amongst police personnel, ensures that all their sins of commission or omission do not come out in the open. Then there is the management cop culture, which sometimes tries to suppress incidents of misconduct by individual policemen because of apprehension that revelation of facts will demoralise the force, besides bringing it a bad name. Two, even where an inquiry into a citizen’s complaint against the police is done, it lacks credibility. The public distrust the police and feel that the department is incapable of conducting inquiries into public complaints in a fair and effective manner.
The citizens can, of course, go the courts to seek redress. This, however, is generally not done by them. Involvement in court cases is time consuming and costly. The courts are clogged with huge arrears of cases under trial. In a hard hitting speech delivered on the occasion of the golden jubilee celebrations of the Supreme Court in November last year, the Prime Minister of India mentioned that “the exasperating and increasingly expensive delays of the judicial system justly invite derision and contempt.” The system has lost its credibility.
AThe other institution to which the citizens can go with their complaints is the National Human Rights Commission, which has been in existence for about seven years now. The problem, however, is that an institution like this in a country of India’s size becomes too remote from the scene to be effective in many cases. A large number of police atrocities are committed in small towns and villages of India, where people are not aware either of Commission’s existence or of its procedures. Most State Governments have yet to set up their own Commissions. In addition, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, under which the National or State Human Rights Commissions are set up, is known to be weak and inadequate in its present form.
Elsewhere in most parts of the democratic world, special integrity cells within the police departments, police complaint boards, civilian complaint boards, ombudsman, community liaison committees etc have been set to ensure the existence of effective multiple mechanisms of police accountability. Civic oversight of, and community inputs, into policing are increasingly being accepted as the most essential requirements of democratic policing.
Policing in India has never been democratic. The Police as an organised institution in this country is about 139 years old. It was set up through the Police Act of 1861, which brought into existence a police force governed by the need of the colonial power to ensure their suzerainty over a subject population and to perpetuate their rule in the country. In this system, the police remained unaccountable to anyone except their own hierarchy and the executive. The idea of the police being a part of the community and accountable to it thus never grew in the Indian soil.
No attempt was ever made to change the system inherited from the colonial days. Though we adopted a democratic structure of polity, most institutions of governance and value systems have still remained feudal and colonial in character. The Police is a perfect example of such an institution. That is why it has been so easy for the politicians and bureaucrats to manipulate the organisation for their narrow partisan purposes. The situation has only become worse during the last few decades because of increasing criminalisation of politics. The worst victim of mafia politics and ignoble politicised policing that we see in this country is the common man, who really wants efficient and reliable policing, but is not being heard.
The need for police reforms is self evident and urgent. It is essential for the establishment of good governance, protection of human rights and economic progress. The reforms will not come on their own. Resistance to the idea of police reforms is deeply entrenched, as Mr Indrajit Gupta, the former Union Home Minister realised to his dismay and disappointment. Mr. Gupta in his famous letter of April 3, 1997 warned the Chief Ministers that the “day may not be far off when the judiciary may intervene decisively to force such socially desirable changes down the throat of the political executive.” More than the judiciary, it is the public, which will have to do so. As someone has rightly said: “The real protection of civil society can only come from its own creators: the people.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)