Even as the State submitted that the guidelines pertaining to police reforms offered by the Supreme Court have been introduced in the Tamil Nadu Police Reform Act, 2013, the Madras High Court on Monday directed the State to file a status report on the implementation of the guidelines recommended 11 years ago.
Chennai:
Observing that from what transpires at police stations and the poor rate of conviction, it seems that the reforms suggested by the Supreme Court remaining merely on paper and based on this, the bench, on directing the State to file a status report about the implementation of the reforms, posted the case to further hearing to March 14. The petitioner, Y Akbar Ahmed, had submitted that he had moved the plea as his RTI queries made in October last year regards the steps taken to implement the Supreme Court verdict in Prakash Singh case failed to evoke any response.
Listing out all the recommendations offered by the Supreme Court, he said though the State had introduced the recommendations into the Act, the RTI reply had failed to offer any reference to the same. He sought the court to intervene and offer a direction since the State had failed to either comply or implement the directions of the Supreme Court.
The Prakash Singh case moved by a retired IPS officer in 1996, had called for the replacement of the colonial era Indian Police Act, 1861 by a new law that could usher in more accountability and transparency in the functioning of police in India.
Based on this, a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court directed all states to constitute a State Security Commission “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.”
The order had also offered directions on the functioning of the proposed State Security Commission, tenure of the Director General of Police and other police officers, transfers and postings of police officers, speedy and independent investigation and setting up of a Police Complaints Authority to address complaints against high ranking police officials.
A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice P Rajamamickam, before whom a public interest litigation seeking for time-bound implementation of the police reforms came up, refused to accept the submission that it has been incorporated into the Tamil Nadu Police Reform Act.
Observing that from what transpires at police stations and the poor rate of conviction, it seems that the reforms suggested by the Supreme Court remaining merely on paper and based on this, the bench, on directing the State to file a status report about the implementation of the reforms, posted the case to further hearing to March 14. The petitioner, Y Akbar Ahmed, had submitted that he had moved the plea as his RTI queries made in October last year regards the steps taken to implement the Supreme Court verdict in Prakash Singh case failed to evoke any response.
Listing out all the recommendations offered by the Supreme Court, he said though the State had introduced the recommendations into the Act, the RTI reply had failed to offer any reference to the same. He sought the court to intervene and offer a direction since the State had failed to either comply or implement the directions of the Supreme Court.
The Prakash Singh case moved by a retired IPS officer in 1996, had called for the replacement of the colonial era Indian Police Act, 1861 by a new law that could usher in more accountability and transparency in the functioning of police in India.
Based on this, a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court directed all states to constitute a State Security Commission “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.”
The order had also offered directions on the functioning of the proposed State Security Commission, tenure of the Director General of Police and other police officers, transfers and postings of police officers, speedy and independent investigation and setting up of a Police Complaints Authority to address complaints against high ranking police officials.