Prakash Singh v.

Union of India
(2006) 8 SCC 1

Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.J.:- Considering the far reaching changes that had taken place in the
country after the enactment of the Indian Police Act, 1861 and absence of any comprehensive review
at the national level of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political,
social and economic situation in the country, the Government of India, on 15th November, 1977,
appointed a National Police Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). The
commission was appointed for fresh examination of the role and performance of the police both as a
law enforcing agency and as an institution to protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the
Constitution.
2. The terms and reference of the Commission were wide ranging. The terms of reference, inter
alia, required the Commission to redefine the role, duties, powers and responsibilities of the police
with special reference to prevention and control of crime and maintenance of public order, evaluate
the performance of the system, identify the basic weaknesses or inadequacies, examine if any changes
necessary in the method of administration, disciplinary control and accountability, inquire into the
system of investigation and prosecution, the reasons for delay and failure and suggest how the system
may be modified or changed and made efficient, scientific and consistent with human dignity,
examine the nature and extent of the special responsibilities of the police towards the weaker sections
of the community and suggest steps and to ensure prompt action on their complaints for the safeguard
of their rights and interests. The Commission was required to recommend measures and institutional
arrangements to prevent misuse of powers by the police, by administrative or executive instructions,
political or other pressures or oral orders of any type, which are contrary to law, for the quick and
impartial inquiry of public complaints made against the police about any misuse of police powers.
The Chairman of the Commission was a renowned and highly reputed former Governor. A retired
High Court Judge, two former Inspector Generals of Police and a Professor of TATA Institute of
Special Sciences were members with the Director, CBI as a full time Member Secretary.
3. The Commission examined all issues in depth, in period of about three and a half years during
which it conducted extensive exercise through analytical studies and research of variety of steps
combined with an assessment and appreciation of actual field conditions. Various study groups
comprising of prominent public men, Senior Administrators, Police Officers and eminent
academicians were set up. Various seminars held, research studies conducted, meetings and
discussions held with the Governors, Chief Ministers, Inspector Generals of Police, State Inspector
Generals of Police and Heads of Police organizations. The Commission submitted its first report in
February 1979, second in August 1979, three reports each in the years 1980 and 1981 including the
final report in May 1981.
4. In its first report, the Commission first dealt with the modalities for inquiry into complaints of
police misconduct in a manner which will carry credibility and satisfaction to the public regarding
their fairness and impartiality and rectification of serious deficiencies which militate against their
functioning efficiently to public satisfaction and advised the Government for expeditious examination
of recommendations for immediate implementation. The Commission observed that increasing crime,
rising population, growing pressure of living accommodation, particularly, in urban areas, violent
outbursts in the wake of demonstrations and agitations arising from labour disputes, the agrarian
unrest, problems and difficulties of students, political activities including the cult of extremists,
enforcement of economic and social legislation etc. have all added new dimensions to police tasks in
the country and tended to bring the police in confrontation with the public much more frequently than
ever before. The basic and fundamental problem regarding police taken note of was as to how to make
them functional as an efficient and impartial law enforcement agency fully motivated and guided by
the objectives of service to the public at large, upholding the constitutional rights and liberty of the
people. Various recommendations were made.
In the second report, it was noticed that the crux of the police reform is to secure professional
independence for the police to function truly and efficiently as an impartial agent of the law of the
land and, at the same time, to enable the Government to oversee the police performance to ensure its
conformity to the law. A supervisory mechanism without scope for illegal, irregular or mala fide
interference with police functions has to be devised. It was earnestly hoped that the Government
would examine and publish the report expeditiously so that the process for implementation of various
recommendations made therein could start right away. The report, inter alia, noticed the phenomenon
of frequent and indiscriminate transfers ordered on political considerations as also other unhealthy
influences and pressures brought to bear on police and, inter alia, recommended for the Chief of
Police in a State, statutory tenure of office by including it in a specific provision in the Police Act
itself and also recommended the preparation of a panel of IPS officers for posting as Chiefs of Police
in States. The report also recommended the constitution of Statutory Commission in each State the
function of which shall include laying down broad policy guidelines and directions for the
performance of preventive task and service oriented functions by the police and also functioning as a
forum of appeal for disposing of representations from any Police Officer of the rank of Superintendent
of Police and above, regarding his being subjected to illegal or irregular orders in the performance of
his duties.
With the 8th and final report, certain basic reforms for the effective functioning of the police to
enable it to promote the dynamic role of law and to render impartial service to the people were
recommended and a draft new Police Act incorporating the recommendations was annexed as an
appendix.
5. When the recommendations of National Police Commission were not implemented, for
whatever reasons or compulsions, and they met the same fate as the recommendations of many other
Commissions, this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed about 10 years back,
inter alia, praying for issue of directions to Government of India to frame a new Police Act on the
lines of the model Act drafted by the Commission in order to ensure that the police is made
accountable essentially and primarily to the law of the land and the people. The first writ petitioner is
known for his outstanding contribution as a Police Officer and in recognition of his outstanding
contribution, he was awarded the "Padma Shri" in 1991. He is a retired officer of Indian Police
Service and served in various States for three and a half decades. He was Director General of Police
of Assam and Uttar Pradesh besides the Border Security Force. The second petitioner also held
various high positions in police. The third petitioner-Common cause is an organization which has
brought before this Court and High Courts various issues of public interest. The first two petitioners
have personal knowledge of the working of the police and also problems of the people. It has been
averred in the petition that the violation of fundamental and human rights of the citizens are generally
in the nature of non-enforcement and discriminatory application of the laws so that those having clout
are not held accountable even for blatant violations of laws and, in any case, not brought to justice for
the direct violations of the rights of citizens in the form of unauthorized detentions, torture,
harassment, fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecutions etc. The petition sets out certain glaring
examples of police inaction. According to the petitioners, the present distortions and aberrations in the
functioning of the police have their roots in the Police Act of 1861, structure and organization of
police having basically remained unchanged all these years.
6. The petition sets out the historical background giving reasons why the police functioning has
caused so much disenchantment and dissatisfaction. It also sets out recommendations of various
Committees which were never implemented. Since the misuse and abuse of police has reduced it to
the status of a mere tool in the hands of unscrupulous masters and in the process, it has caused serious
violations of the rights of the people, it is contended that there is immediate need to re-define the
scope and functions of police, and provide for its accountability to the law of the land, and implement
the core recommendations of the National Police Commission. The petition refers to a research paper
'Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police' published in 1979 by Bureau of Police
Research and Development, warning that excessive control of the political executive and its principal
advisers over the police has the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the process
of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism, and shaking the very foundations of democracy.
The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the Rule of Law. The
supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any
regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking
preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in
appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the Rule of Law
becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken
without any delay.
7. The petitioners seek that Union of India be directed to re- define the role and functions of the
police and frame a new Police Act on the lines of the model Act drafted by the National Police
Commission in order to ensure that the police is made accountable essentially and primarily to the law
of the land and the people. Directions are also sought against the Union of India and State
Governments to constitute various Commissions and Boards laying down the policies and ensuring
that police perform their duties and functions free from any pressure and also for separation of
investigation work from that of law and order. The notice of the petition has also been served on State
Governments and Union Territories. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners, Mr.
G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu Malhotra for the National
Human Rights Commission and Ms. Swati Mehta for the Common Welfare Initiatives. For most of
the State Governments/Union Territories oral submissions were not made. None of the State
Governments/Union Territories urged that any of the suggestion put forth by the petitioners and
Solicitor General of India may not be accepted.
Besides the report submitted to the Government of India by National Police Commission (1977-
81), various other high powered Committees and Commissions have examined the issue of police
reforms, viz. (i) National Human Rights Commission (ii) Law Commission (iii) Ribeiro Committee
(iv) Padmanabhaiah Committee and (v) Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System.
8. In addition to above, the Government of India in terms of Office Memorandum dated 20th
September, 2005 constituted a Committee comprising Shri Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney General
and five others to draft a new Police Act in view of the changing role of police due to various socio-
economic and political changes which have taken place in the country and the challenges posed by
modern day global terrorism, extremism, rapid urbanization as well as fast evolving aspirations of a
modern democratic society. The Sorabjee Committee has prepared a draft outline for a new Police Act
(9th September, 2006). About one decade back, viz. on 3rd August, 1997 a letter was sent by a Union
Home Minister to the State Governments revealing a distressing situation and expressing the view that
if the Rule of Law has to prevail, it must be cured. Despite strong expression of opinions by various
Commissions, Committees and even a Home Minister of the country, the position has not improved as
these opinions have remained only on paper, without any action. In fact, position has deteriorated
further. The National Human Rights Commission in its report dated 31st May, 2002, inter alia, noted
that:
Police Reform:
28(i) The Commission drew attention in its 1st April 2002 proceedings to the need to act
decisively on the deeper question of Police Reform, on which recommendations of the National Police
Commission (NPC) and of the National Human Rights Commission have been pending despite efforts
to have them acted upon. The Commission added that recent event in Gujarat and, indeed, in other
States of the country, underlined the need to proceed without delay to implement the reforms that
have already been recommended in order to preserve the integrity of the investigating process and to
insulate it from 'extraneous influences.
9. In the above noted letter dated 3rd April, 1997 sent to all the State Governments, the Home
Minister while echoing the overall popular perception that there has been a general fall in the
performance of the police as also a deterioration in the policing system as a whole in the country,
expressed that time had come to rise above limited perceptions to bring about some drastic changes in
the shape of reforms and restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by unhealthy
developments. It was expressed that the popular perception all over the country appears to be that
many of the deficiencies in the functioning of the police had arisen largely due to an overdose of
unhealthy and petty political interference at various levels starting from transfer and posting of
policemen of different ranks, misuse of police for partisan purposes and political patronage quite often
extended to corrupt police personnel. The Union Home Minister expressed the view that rising above
narrow and partisan considerations, it is of great national importance to insulate the police from the
growing tendency of partisan or political interference in the discharge of its lawful functions of
prevention and control of crime including investigation of cases and maintenance of public order.
Besides the Home Minister, all the Commissions and Committees above noted, have broadly
come to the same conclusion on the issue of urgent need for police reforms. There is convergence of
views on the need to have (a) State Security Commission at State level; (b) transparent procedure for
the appointment of Police Chief and the desirability of giving him a minimum fixed tenure; (c)
separation of investigation work from law and order; and (d) a new Police Act which should reflect
the democratic aspirations of the people. It has been contended that a statutory State Security
Commission with its recommendations binding on the Government should have been established long
before. The apprehension expressed is that any Commission without giving its report binding effect
would be ineffective.
10. More than 25 years back i.e. in August 1979, the Police Commission Report recommended
that the investigation task should be beyond any kind of intervention by the executive or non-
executive. For separation of investigation work from law and order even the Law Commission of
India in its 154th Report had recommended such separation to ensure speedier investigation, better
expertise and improved rapport with the people without of-course any water tight
compartmentalization in view of both functions being closely inter-related at the ground level. The
Sorabjee Committee has also recommended establishment of a State Bureau of Criminal Investigation
by the State Governments under the charge of a Director who shall report to the Director General of
Police. In most of the reports, for appointment and posting, constitution of a Police Establishment
Board has been recommended comprising of the Director General of Police of the State and four other
senior officers. It has been further recommended that there should be a Public Complaints Authority
at district level to examine the complaints from the public on police excesses, arbitrary arrests and
detentions, false implications in criminal cases, custodial violence etc. and for making necessary
recommendations.
Undoubtedly and undisputedly, the Commission did commendable work and after in depth study,
made very useful recommendations. After waiting for nearly 15 years, this petition was filed. More
than ten years have elapsed since this petition was filed. Even during this period, on more or less
similar lines, recommendations for police reforms have been made by other high powered committees
as above noticed. The Sorabjee Committee has also prepared a draft report. We have no doubt that the
said Committee would also make very useful recommendations and come out with a model new
Police Act for consideration of the Central and the State Governments. We have also no doubt that
Sorabjee Committee Report and the new Act will receive due attention of the Central Government
which may recommend to the State Governments to consider passing of State Acts on the suggested
lines. We expect that the State Governments would give it due consideration and would pass suitable
legislations on recommended lines, the police being a State subject under the Constitution of India.
The question, however, is whether this Court should further wait for Governments to take suitable
steps for police reforms. The answer has to be in the negative.
11. Having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem; (ii) the urgent need for preservation and
strengthening of Rule of Law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv) the fact
that various Commissions and Committees have made recommendations on similar lines for
introducing reforms in the police set-up in the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to when police
reforms would be introduced, we think that there cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come
for issue of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be operative till such time a new
model Police Act is prepared by the Central Government and/or the State Governments pass the
requisite legislations. It may further be noted that the quality of Criminal Justice System in the
country, to a large extent, depends upon the working of the police force. Thus, having regard to the
larger public interest, it is absolutely necessary to issue the requisite directions. Nearly ten years back,
in Vineet Narain. v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 199] this Court noticed the urgent need for the
State Governments to set up the requisite mechanism and directed the Central Government to pursue
the matter of police reforms with the State Governments and ensure the setting up of a mechanism for
selection/appointment, tenure, transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police but also
all police officers of the rank of Superintendents of Police and above. The Court expressed its shock
that in some States the tenure of a Superintendent of Police is for a few months and transfers are made
for whimsical reasons which has not only demoralizing effect on the police force but is also alien to
the envisaged constitutional machinery. It was observed that apart from demoralizing the police force,
it has also the adverse effect of politicizing the personnel and, therefore, it is essential that prompt
measures are taken by the Central Government.
12. The Court then observed that no action within the constitutional scheme found necessary to
remedy the situation is too stringent in these circumstances. More than four years have also lapsed
since the report above noted was submitted by the National Human Rights commission to the
Government of India. The preparation of a model Police Act by the Central Government and
enactment of new Police Acts by State Governments providing therein for the composition of State
Security Commission are things, we can only hope for the present. Similarly, we can only express our
hope that all State Governments would rise to the occasion and enact a new Police Act wholly
insulating the police from any pressure whatsoever thereby placing in position an important measure
for securing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution for the Rule of Law, treating everyone
equal and being partisan to none, which will also help in securing an efficient and better criminal
justice delivery system. It is not possible or proper to leave this matter only with an expression of this
hope and to await developments further. It is essential to lay down guidelines to be operative till the
new legislation is enacted by the State Governments.
13. Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to issue such
directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. All authorities are
mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the orders passed by this Court. The decision in Vineet
Narain case notes various decisions of this Court where guidelines and directions to be observed were
issued in absence of legislation and implemented till legislatures pass appropriate legislations.
14. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the various reports. In
discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we
issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories
for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations:
State Security Commission
(1) The State Governments are directed to constitute a State Security Commission in every State
to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State
police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State police always acts according
to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country. This watchdog body shall be headed by the
Chief Minister or Home Minister as Chairman and have the DGP of the State as its ex-officio
Secretary. The other members of the Commission shall be chosen in such a manner that it is able to
function independent of Government control. For this purpose, the State may choose any of the
models recommended by the National Human Rights Commission, the Ribeiro Committee or the
Sorabjee Committee, which are as under:
NHRC Ribeiro Committee Sorabjee Committee

1. Chief Minister/HM as 1. Minister i/c Police as 1. Minister i/c Police (ex-

Chairman. Chairman officio Chairperson)

2. Lok Ayukta or, in his 2. Leader of Opposition 2. Leader of Opposition

absence, a retired Judge of
High Court to be nominated
by Chief Justice or a Member
of State Human Rights
Commission.

3. A sitting or retired Judge 3. Judge, sitting or retired, 3. Chief Secretary

nominated by Chief Justice nominated by Chief Justice
 of High Court. of High Court.

4. Chief Secretary 4. Chief Secretary 4. DGP (ex-officio

Secretary)

5. Leader of Opposition in 5. Three non-political 5. Five independent

Lower House citizens of proven merit Members.
and integrity.

6. DGP as ex-officio 6. DG Police as Secretary.

Secretary
The recommendations of this Commission shall be binding on the State Government. The
functions of the State Security Commission would include laying down the broad policies and giving
directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police,
evaluation of the performance of the State police and preparing a report thereon for being placed
before the State legislature.
Selection and Minimum Tenure of DGP:
(2) The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from
amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to
that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good
record and range of experience for heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the
job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.
The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in
consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under
the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a
criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his
duties.
Minimum Tenure of I.G. of Police & other officers:
(3) Police Officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General of Police in-charge
Zone, Deputy Inspector General of Police in-charge Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge district
and Station House Officer in-charge of a Police Station shall also have a prescribed minimum tenure
of two years unless it is found necessary to remove them prematurely following disciplinary
proceedings against them or their conviction in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption or if the
incumbent is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his responsibilities.
This would be subject to promotion and retirement of the officer.
Separation of Investigation:
(4) The investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier
investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. It must, however, be ensured that
there is full coordination between the two wings. The separation, to start with, may be effected in
towns/urban areas which have a population of ten lakhs or more, and gradually extended to smaller
towns/urban areas also.
Police Establishment Board:
(5) There shall be a Police Establishment Board in each State which shall decide all transfers,
postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Establishment Board shall be a departmental body comprising the
Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department. The State Government
may interfere with decision of the Board in exceptional cases only after recording its reasons for
doing so. The Board shall also be authorized to make appropriate recommendations to the State
Government regarding the posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of
Police, and the Government is expected to give due weight to these recommendations and shall
normally accept it. It shall also function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from
officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above regarding their
promotion/transfer/disciplinary proceedings or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders and
generally reviewing the functioning of the police in the State.
Police Complaints Authority:
(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints
against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there
should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against
officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed
by a retired District Judge while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the
High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the
State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the district level
Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a
Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three to five
members depending upon the volume of complaints in different States/districts, and they shall be
selected by the State Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok
Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired civil
servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil society. They would
work whole time for the Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated for the services
rendered by them. The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries.
For this purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence,
Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of
only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents
involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority
would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or
any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints Authority,
both at the district and State levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent
police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority.
National Security Commission:
(7) The Central Government shall also set up a National Security Commission at the Union level
to prepare a panel for being placed before the appropriate Appointing Authority, for selection and
placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO), who should also be given a minimum
tenure of two years. The Commission would also review from time to time measures to upgrade the
effectiveness of these forces, improve the service conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is
proper coordination between them and that the forces are generally utilized for the purposes they were
raised and make recommendations in that behalf. The National Security Commission could be headed
by the Union Home Minister and comprise heads of the CPOs and a couple of security experts as
members with the Union Home Secretary as its Secretary.
The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the Central Government, State Governments or
Union Territories, as the case may be, on or before 31st December, 2006 so that the bodies afore-
noted became operational on the onset of the new year. The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India
and the Chief Secretaries of State Governments/Union Territories are directed to file affidavits of
compliance by 3rd January, 2007.
15. Before parting, we may note another suggestion of Mr. Prashant Bhushan that directions be
also issued for dealing with the cases arising out of threats emanating from international terrorism or
organized crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of weapons from across the
borders, counterfeiting of currency or the activities of mafia groups with trans-national links to be
treated as measures taken for the defence of India as mentioned in Entry I of the Union List in the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and as internal security measures as contemplated under
Article 355 as these threats and activities aim at destabilizing the country and subverting the economy
and thereby weakening its defence. The suggestion is that the investigation of above cases involving
inter-state or international ramifications deserves to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
 16. The suggestion, on the face of it, seems quite useful. But, unlike the aforesaid aspects which
were extensively studied and examined by various experts and reports submitted and about which for
that reason, we had no difficulty in issuing directions, there has not been much study or material
before us, on the basis whereof we could safely issue the direction as suggested. For considering this
suggestion, it is necessary to enlist the views of expert bodies. We, therefore, request the National
Human Rights Commission, Sorabjee Committee and Bureau of Police Research and Development to
examine the aforesaid suggestion of Mr. Bhushan and assist this Court by filing their considered
views within four months. The Central Government is also directed to examine this suggestion and
submit its views within that time.
Further suggestion regarding monitoring of the aforesaid directions that have been issued either
by National Human Rights Commission or the Police Bureau would be considered on filing of
compliance affidavits whereupon the matter shall be listed before the Court.

*****