Govts bend police machinery to serve their ends

The dictionary defines ?superintendence? as ?authoritative control over the affairs of others: administration, direction, government, management, supervision.? Governments have, for a long time, been taking undue advantage of this power of ?superintendence? to bend the police machinery to serve their ends.

The dictionary defines ‘superintendence’ as “authoritative control over the affairs of others: administration, direction, government, management, supervision.”

Governments have, for a long time, been taking undue advantage of this power of ‘superintendence’ to bend the police machinery to serve their ends.A three-judge Division bench of the Supreme Court (which was presided over by the then Chief Justice of India JS Verma) had critically examined all the aspects of the matter relating to governments issuing directions to investigating agencies about initiation and investigation of criminal cases (Vineet Narain Vs. the Union of India, 1998, cases 226).Defending the right of the government to issue instructions to investigating agencies, the Attorney General of India had urged before the court that since the government had created the investigating agency, it was required to function according to its mandate. The ultimate responsibility, he said, for the functioning of the agency to Parliament is that of the minister concerned, who has the power to review the working of the agencies. The minister has the authority to give broad policy directions regarding investigation and prosecution of classes or categories of cases and to call for information regarding progress of cases.Citing the basic postulate of the concept of equality (“Be you ever so high, the law is above you”), the Supreme Court observed: “Everyone against whom there is suspicion of committing a crime has to be treated equally. Similarity under the law and probity in public life is of great significance.”The court had further opined, “It is sufficient to say that the minister’s general power to review the working of the agency and to give broad policy directions regarding the functioning of the agencies and to appraise the quality of the work of the head of the agency and other officers as the executive head is in no way to be diluted. Similarly, the minister’s power to call for information generally regarding the cases being handled by the agencies is not to be taken away. However, all the powers of the minister are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed entirely by the mandate of the law and the statutory duty cast on them.”The court further said, “The agencies must bear in mind, and if needed, be reminded of the caution administered by Lord Denning in this behalf. Indicating the duty of the Commissioner of Police, Lord Denning stated thus: (1968 All ER p 769) “I have no hesitation, however, in holding that, like every constable in the land, he should be and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to the orders of the Secretary of State. I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every Chief Constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected, and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspect persons are to be prosecuted, and, if need be bring the prosecution or see that it is brought, but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save the law itself. No minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that, or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.”  The Supreme Court also went into the meaning of the word ‘superintendence’ and observed: “The general superintendence over the functioning of the department and specification of the offences, which are to be investigated by the agency is not the same as and would not include within it the control of the initiation and the actual process of investigation, i.e., direction. The word ‘superintendence’ cannot be construed in a wider sense to permit the supervision of an actual investigation of an offence contrary to the manner provided by the statutory provisions.”  As the final arbiter of interpretation of law in the country the above observations of the Supreme Court are the law of the land (since these have not been reviewed/ overturned by the Court so far.) But, governments at the Centre and in the States have all chosen to ignore the court’s clear-cut observations and continue to arm-twist the police in a shameless manner.                                                  To be continued                       The writer is former Director General of Police, UP.