"During the current year some States of the Union have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of communal incidents. A major communal clash in Muzaffarnagar and the adjoining districts of Western Uttar Pradesh in September took a large toll of lives and displaced thousands of innocent people. This is most worrisome. It sounds like a cliché but is necessary to say that we simply cannot afford such a state of affairs to continue. Our law and order agencies must, therefore, ensure that trivial or local issues are not exploited by vested interests to flame communal passions. And once disturbances occur they must be tackled with the utmost firmness and speed, without prejudice, fear or favour. The State Governments have the responsibility to ensure this, and State DGPs present here have the responsibility to ensure that their police forces act in the required manner in preventing communal tensions and dealing with them once they do take place. I expect all State DGPs to discharge this responsibility fully.
As far as terrorism is concerned, four major incidents occurred this year, in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bodhgaya and Patna. The disclosures made by the arrested members of the terrorist outfits confirm our apprehensions that Indian hinterland remains an active area of operation for these outfits. Therefore, we need to ensure that our security apparatus and intelligence sharing platforms such as the Multi Agency Centre constantly hone their skills to stay ahead of the nefarious designs of these terrorist outfits. However, while dealing with terror cases, care needs to be taken that security forces remain scrupulously bipartisan so that our people do not lose faith in the professionalism of investigative agencies and the secular nature of our polity. " said Dr. Singh in his speech.
On the issue of police reform he remained silent.On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India instructing central and state governments to comply with a set of seven directives laying down practical mechanisms to kick-start police reform. The Court's directives seek to achieve two main objectives: functional autonomy for the police - through security of tenure, streamlined appointment and transfer processes, and the creation of a "buffer body" between the police and the government - and enhanced police accountability, both for organisational performance and individual misconduct. After decades of public pressure, lack of political will and continued poor policing, a police reform process is finally budding. The need for reform is particularly acute as the archaic Police Act of 1861 continues to govern policing, despite far reaching changes in governance.
In 1996, two former Director Generals of Police took the issue to the Supreme Court, requesting the Court to direct central and state governments to address the most glaring gaps and bad practice in the functioning of the police. Given the "gravity of the problem" and "total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced", the Supreme Court considered in 2006 that it could not "further wait for governments to take suitable steps for police reforms" and had to issue "appropriate directions for immediate compliance". These directions are binding upon governments until they frame "appropriate legislation".
The Supreme Court required all governments, at centre and state levels, to comply with the seven directives by 31 December 2006 and to file affidavits of compliance by the 3rd of January 2007. State government responses have varied tremendously, ranging from complying in time with the directives through executive orders, to expressing strong objections to the directives and asking the Court to review them. Others have requested the Court to grant them more time to comply with the judgment. On 11 January 2007, the Supreme Court cast away the objections raised and stated that its directions had to be complied with without any modification. The Court granted a three month extension to comply with four of its directives, while stating that the others had to be complied with immediately.
A number of states have taken the initiative to put in place special committees to draft a new Police Bill and committed to introducing it in the legislature in the coming months. It is hoped that these new pieces of legislation will be openly debated and ultimately reflect the essence of the Supreme Court judgment. The judgment is the first tangible step towards police reform in a long time but also only an initial step. What is now required is strong political will to introduce long-lasting reform and not merely cosmetic changes.
