It is encouraging that the Centre is trying to improve the criminal justice system with new steps. But these changes will remain peripheral unless the system of policing is reformed. As a starter, implement the directives given by the top court and ensure autonomy
In a recent lecture in Raipur on August 27, Union home minister Amit Shah said that the government was strengthening central probe agencies, including the National Investigation Agency (NIA), whose units would be established in every state by 2024. The following day, on another occasion in Gandhinagar, he said that the government will provide portable forensic units to all districts to improve the conviction rate for crimes and standardise the investigation process.
Shortly after he took office in 2014, the Prime Minister enunciated the concept of SMART police — police that would be strict and sensitive, modern and mobile, alert and accountable, reliable and responsive, techno-savvy and trained (Deepak Sansta/HTPhoto)
These statements are laudable. There is no doubt that the NIA has been doing commendable work in the recent past, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and in the Northeast, where it has taken effective action against separatist and insurgent elements. There are, however, two central agencies that are in urgent need of reforms: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
The CBI was set up by the Government of India through a resolution passed on April 1, 1963, and it derives its power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It is an anomalous arrangement. In 1978, the LP Singh committee recommended enacting “a comprehensive central legislation to remove the deficiency of not having a central investigative agency with a self-sufficient statutory charter of duties and functions”. Several parliamentary committees have since emphasised the need “to strengthen CBI in terms of legal mandate, infrastructure and resources.” It is high time that the CBI is given an appropriate legislative basis.
The IB was established through an administrative order on December 23, 1887. This organisation also needs a statutory or constitutional basis. It has given a good account of itself, but it is also a fact that intelligence agencies, both at the state and central levels, are misused by the party in power to perpetuate its authority. There must be safeguards to prevent the misuse of intelligence for political purposes. In the United States (US), there are congressional committees to scrutinise the operations of intelligence organisations. The United Kingdom (UK) has the Intelligence Services Act, 1994, which ensures parliamentary oversight over intelligence. In India, Manish Tewari, Member of Parliament (MP), introduced the Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill 2011, to place the IB, Research and Analysis Wing and the National Technical Research Organisation on a proper legal footing, and suggested the setting up of the National Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee. It was a template that could have been worked upon and adopted, but the private member’s bill was not successful and lapsed in 2012. The matter is yet to be resurrected.
Forensics are essential for any thorough investigation. There are 530 forensic science laboratories in the country. Of these, 32 are main laboratories, 80 are regional laboratories, and the remaining 418 are mobile units. The numbers may sound impressive, but looking at the size of the country and the number of cases registered annually, these labs cannot cope with the huge demand.
The Centre set up the National Forensic Sciences University in 2020, the first of its kind in the world, to meet the requirements of forensic experts in the country. The home minister’s idea of having mobile forensic units in all districts is welcome, but it might take another four or five years before all of them get this facility. Besides, we have only one university training personnel in forensics, and it will need a couple of more such institutions to meet the total requirement of forensic experts.
In this context, it would be desirable that investigators and their supervisory officers have a certain level of proficiency in law, computer science, and forensics to improve the quality of investigations and secure a higher percentage of convictions.
This could be achieved either by extending the training period or making it mandatory that within five years of joining the service, officers must acquire the prescribed proficiency in these disciplines.
It is encouraging that the government is gradually trying to improve the criminal justice system, but these reforms are likely to be peripheral. They will certainly improve the operational efficiency of the police, but to a limited extent. Police is a state subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution; systemic and far-reaching reforms are possible only if the states are also on board. The central government can incentivise reforms and introduce the Supreme Court-mandated directions at least in states where it is the ruling party, either on its own or in alliance with other parties. Insulating investigating agencies from external pressures should be the most important feature of these reforms. That will guarantee fairness in investigations and be a major step towards establishing the rule of law in the country.
Shortly after he took office in 2014, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi enunciated the concept of SMART police — police that would be strict and sensitive, modern and mobile, alert and accountable, reliable and responsive, techno-savvy and trained. There were great expectations. The dream, unfortunately, remains unfulfilled. At his last Independence Day speech, the PM called for erasing all the vestiges of colonialism. Yet, tragically, when it comes to policing, we continue to be saddled by colonial modes of thinking and operation.
Prakash Singh is a former director general of police of Assam and Uttar Pradesh, and director general, Border Security Force
E-Paper
