Image Courtesy:civilsocietyonline.com
In a recent order, the Kerala High Court directed the state’s Home Ministry to expedite the process to choose a Chief Investigating Officer for the State Police Complaint Authority.
The Petitioner, Jaffer Khan, a human rights activist filed a plea seeking the same directions as the post remained vacant despite repeated government notification issued to that effect since the post was sanctioned in 2016.
The Chief Investigating Officer (CIO) is a non-police independent investigating officer whose appointment has been pushed for by the government through notifications. The Kerala Police Act 2011 in its section 110 provides for the constitution of a Police Complaints Authority under which 2 committees are to be formed The State Police Complaint Authority and The District Police Complaint Authority. The purpose of the state level Authority is to examine and inquire into complaints of all types of misconduct by police officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. A state government order states that “those officers who have worked in the rank of Superintendent of Police in the Central Investigation Agencies like Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA) etc. and not served in Kerala Police are eligible for appointment as CIO.”
The bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly gave instances of custodial deaths in the state including one at Varapuzha Police Station which leads to the brutal murder of youngster named “Sreejith” in police custody, as also the death of an entrepreneur of a company named Haritha F who was brutally tortured in custody.
The petitioner called into question the voluntary appointment of the ACS (Home and Vigilance) as the Chairman of the recruitment committee and the appointment of ADGP from the State police as the government nominee.
The government pleader informed the court that the selection committee has been reconstituted and the process will now continue. The court then directed the State’s home Department to finalise the selection to the post of CIO within three weeks.
About Police Complaint Authority
There are many Committees that have reiterated the need for holding the police accountable for their actions. The First Report of the National Police Commission, released in 1979, stressed the need for an independent authority to look into complaints against the police. This was reiterated by the Ribeiro Committee in 1998 and the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000. Further, provisions for complaints authorities at the state and district levels were included in the Model Police Act that was developed by the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) in 2006, headed by Soli Sorabjee.
The most important development in this are came when the Supreme Court gave specific directions to set up Police Complaint Authority to be set up by all states. In Prakash Singh and Ors v Union of India and Ors (2006) 8 SCC 1. The judgement authored by then CJI YK Sabharwal pointed out that lack of any comprehensive review at the national level of the police system despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation.
The specific directions with regards to Police Complaints Authority are:
(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.
Complaints about custodial death, custodial violence/torture/sexual assault can be made before the PCA and at the district level even complaints of extortion or land grabbing by a police official can be made or any incident that indicates abuse of power by the police. The PCA can make recommendations to the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings or register FIR against the officer and even to pay compensation to the victim.
Crimes by police officials
As per the Crimes in India 2019 report released by the National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 53 deaths of person not in remand were reported in 2019 and only 25 policemen were arrested, out of them 16 were chargesheeted and not even one police official was convicted. Persons not in remand means persons arrested and yet to be produced before court within the 24 hour mandated timeline.
Further, 32 deaths of persons in remand were reported in 2019. While only 3 police officers were arrested, no officers were convicted that year and 2 were acquitted/discharged.
Apart from this, the report also documents the cases registered against police officers, for not just custodial deaths but also abuse of power and other incidents. The data suggests that a total 4,068 cases were registered against police officers and in 2019 only 12 officers were convicted.
Certainly, the data suggests that authorities like the PCA are necessary but their efficacy is brought into question. It is a statutory body, established by each state through a legislation, however, its powers are limited and these PCAs have not known to have created any impact on reducing number of custodial deaths or instances of violence or abuse of power by police personnel and neither are they known to play any active role in initiating proceedings against officers. Thus, mere existence of these bodies is futile unless they play an active role in playing out their mandate.
Related:
Haryana: Karnal SDM orders brutal lathi-charge on protesting farmers
Guj HC warns Police of misuse of PASA to settle private disputes
Bhima Koregaon: Prisoners accuse ex-jail superintendent of ‘political censorship’