States’ Report Card
(Based on Thomas Committee Report)

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on March 31, 2014)
(In States which have issued Executive Orders)

Sl. No. State State Security Commission
(Direction No.1)
Selection & Tenure of DGP
(Direction No.2)
Tenure of other Officers
(Direction No.3)
Separation of Investigation from law & order
(Direction No.4)
Police Establishment Board
(Direction No.5)
Police Complaints Authorities
(Direction No.6)
Remarks
1 Andhra Pradesh State Government issued order on 8.8.2013 reconstituting SSC with following members:
HM, Leader of Opposition, Chief Secy., DGP and 5 independent members (Sorabjee Model). Recommendations of SSC would be binding.
Comments.
  1. Procedure for selection of “independent members” not clarified .
  2. SSC will meet at least once in six months. It should meet more frequently, at least once a month.
State Government claims to have implemented first component of direction regarding selection of DGP.
Comments
  1. Has asked GOI to issue clarifications / amendments to AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958.
  2. Has filed interlocutory application, seeking non-involvement of UPSC in selection process.
Yes, G.O. issued on 07.02.07. However, some civil society representatives who met Thomas Committee at Hyderabad on 17.7.09 alleged that transfer orders were being issued frequently in gross violation of the G.O. State government have issued order dated 8.8.2013 on the subject. Board constituted vide G.O. dated 07.02.07.
Comments
  1. Not authorized to make recommendations regarding postings / transfers of gazetted police officers.
  2. Not to function as forum of appeal on representations from officers regarding their promotion/transfer etc. or their being subjected to illegal orders.
  3. Not to review the functioning of police.
State government issued order on 8.8.2013 constituting Complaints Authority at State and District levels. Its recommendations will be binding. Government drafting Police Bill.
2 Arunachal Pradesh Constituted vide Notification dated 27.02.07, choosing the model laid down in the Model Police Act.
Comments
  1. Instead of two official members (Chief Secretary and DGP), the State Govt. added two more (Home Commissioner and the IGP) in the Commission.
  2. No judicial person included in the Commission, as envisaged in the ‘Model Police Act’ of Soli Sorabjee Committee.
Notification dated 18.12.06 issued, but in view of the concurrent administrative arrangement under which the DGP for Arunachal Pradesh is selected by MHA and not by the State Government, the notification becomes infructuous. Notification dated 18.12.06 issued. However, since the posting of IPS officers in Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by MHA, the order of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh will be infructuous in so far as the postings of IPS officers are concerned. Notification dated 27.02.07 issued deciding such separation in nine densely populated urban police stations. Constitution provided for, vide Notification dated 14.12.06. Constitution of a State-level Authority provided for, vide Notification dated 27.02.07.
Comments
  1. Complaint Authorities at the district-level not provided for.
Arunanchal Pradesh Police Act drafted, but yet to be passed by legislature.
3 Goa Constituted vide an Order dated 03.04.07, adopting the NHRC model.
Comments
  1. Lokayukta or, in his absence, one more retired High Court Judge is not included in the composition, as prescribed by NHRC.
  2. Not clarified that recommendations of Board will be binding.
    In its latest affidavit (July 2013) State Govt. has taken the stand that this direction “affects the Constitutional distribution of powers”. The affidavit nevertheless goes on to say that in matters of investigation police should be “fully insulated from any political interference”
No order issued. The State Government’s stand is that:
  1. Selection of DGP is done by MHA, and the State has no control over the selection as also over the tenure of the officer.
  2. MHA will be requested to ensure two years’ tenure “unless the State itself has a strong reservation” about continuance of a particular incumbent.
Comments
State Govt. wants to have the prerogative to express its reservations about a particular incumbent
Officers posted in Goa are part of AGMU (Arunachal, Goa, Mizoram and UT) cadre. MHA is the cadre controlling authority.
Tenure of officers is two years “unless circumstances otherwise warrant”.
Comments
State Govt. wants to have the prerogative to transfer officers under certain circumstances, which have not been specified
No town with 10 lakh or more of population Seven police station have nevertheless been identified for separation with respect to ten types of heinous crimes Constituted vide Order dated 15.02.07.
Comments
  1. The Order does not specifically state that the State Government would interfere with the decisions of the Board only in exceptional cases and after recording its reasons for doing so.
  2. It also does not specify that the recommendations of the Board regarding the postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP shall be given due weightage by the State Government and normally accepted.
Goa has only two districts. As such there is only a state level Police Complaints Authority. It is headed by a senior Retired Judge of Mumbai High Court Goa Police Bill 2008 introduced in state legislature. Select Committee constituted to examine the Bill.
4 Jammu & Kashmir Not complied, State Govt. has moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction. No orders issued. Not complied. State Government has moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction. However, according to latest affidavit, separate crime detection cells have been established in all police stations within municipal limits of Srinagar & Jammu only. Created, vide order dated 6.02.07.
Comments
But the order is silent about:
  1. Role of the Board in respect of postings / transfers of officers above the rank of DySP.
  2. Circumstances under which State Govt. may interfere with decisions of the Board.
  3. Role of the Board in reviewing the functioning of the State Police.
On 3.9.12, Govt. set up Senior Personnel Board and Junior Personnel Board to lay down transfer /posting policy.
Not complied. State Govt. has moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction.
Comments
May be favorably considered.
Jammu and Kashmir Police Bill 2013 drafted and made available for public feedback.
5 Jharkhand Created, vide notification dated 31.12.06.
Comments
  1. There is no judicial element in the composition of the Commission.
  2. The order does not mention anywhere that the recommendations of the Commission shall be binding.
  3. No mention also that the Commission’s report on evaluation of police performance will be placed before the State legislature.
No order issued.
Guidelines from UPSC awaited
Order issued, vide notification dated 27.02.07 providing for minimum tenure of two years for police officers on operational duties in the field. Vide a Resolution dated 31.12.06, separate cadres for investigation and law and order wing constituted for the urban areas of Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Bokaro and Dhanbad.
Comments
  1. Order does not specify any details of how the separation would be effected.
Police Establishment Board constituted vide notification dated 19.02.07, reconstituted vide notification dated 9.10.2009.
Comments
  1. Order is silent on the Supreme Court direction that the State Government may interfere with the decisions of the Board only in exceptional cases, and after duly recording the reasons.
  2. Also, the Board is not authorized to act as a forum of appeal against police officers being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
Constituted, both at State and District-levels, vide Resolution dated 03.04.07.
Comments
  1. However, the resolution does not make the recommendations of the Complaints Authorities binding on the concerned authority.
Police Bill being drafted.
6 Madhya Pradesh State Security Council constituted vide Home Dept order dated 13.12.2011, as per Sorabjee model.
Comments
  1. It is an advisory body, whose recommendations will not be binding on State Govt.
  2. No provision for report of Council being placed before State Legislature.
Orders issued on 14.02.07.
Comments
  1. No role of the UPSC in the selection process.
  2. An additional clause of ‘failure to provide leadership in a grave situation of general law and order’ has been added for the premature removal of DGP.
  3. No procedure is prescribed for such removal, to ensure objectivity and credibility of action.
Orders issued on 14.02.07 .
Comments
  1. Officers can be prematurely removed for ‘failure in controlling a grave law and order situation’.
  2. They can also be removed on ‘becoming otherwise ‘incapable’ of discharging official responsibilities’, instead of ‘becoming incapacitated’ as per Supreme Court’s direction.
  3. No procedure is prescribed for such premature removals.
State Govt. has, vide its order dated 27.08.2012, approved appointment of 400 additional police officers in four metropolitan areas / districts of Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur.
Comments
  1. Officers can be prematurely removed for ‘failure in controlling a grave law and order situation’.
  2. Separate staff for investigation not provided for.
Created vide orders dated 14.2.07.
Comments
  1. The Board is to deal with transfers / postings of officers upto the rank of Inspector only, not DySPs.
  2. The Board is not authorized to finally decide on transfer / postings on its own. The order mandates that all the decisions of the Board should be forwarded to the State Govt. ‘before implementation’.
  3. Recommendations of the Board on transfer / postings of SPs and above are to be given only ‘reasonable weightage’ by the State Government, not to be ‘normally accepted’.
  4. Representations from police officers against transfer / postings etc. and against being subjected to any illegal or irregular orders, are to be merely forwarded by the Board to the State Government for decision.
State Govt. have, vide their order dated 30.08.2010, constituted Complaint Board at district level.
Comments
  1. District level Board is headed by Minister i/c District instead of retd District and Sessions Judge.
  2. Other members of the Board also not as per Supreme Court direction.
  3. Recommendat-ions of Board will be referred to authorized commissions / police, will not be binding.
  4. No state level Board constituted.
 
7 Maharashtra Maharashtra Police (Amentment) Ordinance, 2014 constitutes SSC on Sorabjee model.
Comments
  1. Additional Chief Secretary (Home) also included in SSC;
  2. Five non-official members will be nominated by State Government. Earlier order of July, 2013 had provision for selection panel for independent members. Non-officials nominated by Govt. may not show required degree of objectivity;
  3. Recommendations of SSC will be advisory in nature.
DGP shall be selected by State Govt. from amongst four senior-most police officers from the cadre.
Comments
  1. Role of UPSC in preparation of panel not recognized.
  2. Tenure is subject to superannuation.
Police personnel shall have a normal tenure of two years.
Comments
  1. Government has, however, retained the power of mid-term transfer of officers in public interest and in administrative exigencies. These could be misused.
Ordinance is vague on this point. It merely says that local Crime Branch and Detection and Investigation Cells in each police station shall concentrate on investigation of crimes and shall not be entrusted with law and order, security and other duties ordinarily.
Comments
  1. The separation arrangement for crime work from L/O is weak and would apply “ordinarily”.
  2. 2) Without additional staff, separation will be on paper only.
Two PEBs constituted at state-level, one at Range level and a fourth one at Commissionerate level.
Comments
  1. State level Board headed by Addl.CS is contrary to Court’s directions, which mandated it to be a “departmental body”.
  2. At the state level, there should be only one Board.
  3. Powers of DGP curtailed by Ordinance.
  4. Board not given power to review functioning of police in the State.
  5. State Govt. has power to give overriding directions which will be binding on the Board.
Complaint Authorities set up at State/District levels.
Comments
  1. No provision of panel for selection of Chairperson of Division level PCA.
  2. State Govt. has the power to reject the report of the State Police Complaints Authority. Court’s direction was that PCA recommendations should be binding. State Govt had earlier taken the stand that recommendation of “any Authority” can never be binding on State Government, and that such a direction is “inconsistent with and contrary to the procedure laid down by the Constitution”
Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 promulgated on Feb. 1, 2014.
8 Manipur Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07.
Comments Composition does not include a judicial element.
Order dated 28.12.06 issued. Minimum tenure notified, except in cases of superannuation. Order dated 28.12.06 issued Not applicable as no town or urban area has a population of 10 lakhs or more. Constituted vide Order dated 28.12.06.
Comments
  1. The Board is authorized to decide only transfers / postings of DySPs, and below. For other service matters, it will only make recommendations.
  2. For SPs and above, the Board will make recommendations, but the order does not specify that the Government will give due weight to those recommendations and shall normally accept them.
  3. The Board is not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations on police officers being subjected to illegal or irregular orders, or to generally review the functioning of the State Police.
Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07.
Comments
  1. The independent members of the State-level Authority are all retired bureaucrats.
  2. Independent members for the District-level Authorities do not seem to have been nominated.
  3. The recommendations of the Complaints Authorities are not binding on the authorities concerned.
Manipur Police Bill, 2007 drafted. However, it has yet to be approved by the State Government.
9 Nagaland Constituted vide Notification dated 30.03.07.
Comments
It has no role in evaluation of performance of the State Police and preparing a report thereon for being placed before the State legislature.
Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. Notification dated 30.03.07 issued. Notification dated 30.03.07 issued.
Comments
It specifies that the separation is to be effected within the available budgetary and manpower resources, which appears non-committal.
State has a committee headed by Chief Secretary and comprising DGP, Commissioner and Home Secretary for the purpose, under an old order of 1998.
Comments
  1. Arrangement is not in keeping with Court’s directives.
  2. State constituted an Establishment Board vide Order dated 17.01.07, which has been vested with powers of postings and transfers only in respect of SIs/ASIs.
  3. PEB constituted vide order of 23.06.08 to cover the ranks of SP and above does not conform to the SC direction in that it is not an entirely departmental body.
  4. The Boards are only recommendatory bodies.
  5. The Boards are also not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.
State level Authority constituted, vide Notification dated 30.03.07
Comments
  1. Notification is silent on making recommendations of the Authority binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
  2. District level Authorities not constituted.
 
10 Odisha Not constituted. Notification issued on 06.04.07.
Comments
  1. Zone of consideration for selection not specified.
  2. No role for UPSC in empanelment of officers.
  3. Minimum tenure of two years for DGP will be: “as far as possible” and subject to superannuation.
  4. DGP can be relieved of his responsibility, among other contingencies, upon his being found “incapable of discharging his duties”. This is liable to be misused.
  5. He may also be changed due to his promotion, retirement, including voluntary retirement or upon request for being relieved of the post for personal reasons.
Notification issued on 06.04.07 providing for tenure of two years for police officers on operational duties.
Comments
  1. An officer can be removed prematurely if he is found “otherwise incapable of discharging his responsibilities”.
  2. He may also be changed upon his request for being relieved of the post for personal reasons.
Notification issued on 06.04.07, separating investigation from law and order in two major cities - Bhubaneswar and Cuttack.
Comments
  1. Mechanics of implementation of separation are not specified in the notification.
Created vide notification dated 06.04.07,
Comments
  1. Not authorized to make recommendations to the State Govt. with regard to the postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP.
  2. Also not authorized to act as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their being subjected to illegal orders, as mandated in the SC’s direction.
  3. The Board to review the work of the police officials in the State (not functioning of the police as such)
Vide notification dated 06.04.07, the State-level Authority is vested in the Lokapl who will deal with the complaints under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995.
Comments
  1. Arrangement is a deviation from Court’s directions.
  2. No independent members included in the composition.
  3. Recommendations of the Authority will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995.
  4. District-level Authorities not constituted.
Draft Odisha Police Bill is in the final stages
11 Tamil Nadu SSC constituted, vide Ordinance issued on Sept.11, 2013, comprising Home Minister , Leader of Opposition, Chairpersons of Public Service Commission / State Human Rights Commission / State Minorities Commission, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and DGP
Comments
  1. Composition does not follow any of three models prescribed by Court.
  2. SSC virtually dominated by Government and its nominees.
  3. SSC does not have power to give directions for the performance of preventive tasks and service oriented functions of police.
DGP will be selected from panel prepared by UPSC and will have tenure of two years.
Comments
  1. Court wanted panel of three names. Ordinance mentions panel of five officers.
Officers incharge police station, SP and Commissioner of Police will have tenure of two years
Comments
  1. Ordinance is silent about tenure of DIG i/c Range or IG i/c Zone.
  2. Officers may be shifted in the event of transfer of another officer.
  3. Officers could be transferred on “administrative grounds”.
Section 9 of Ordinance provides for separation for every police station Ordinance creates PEB for officers of the rank of SP and above and another Police Establishment Committee for officers of and below the rank Addl. SP
Comments
  1. Not clear that recommendations of PEB will be given “due weight” by the Government, which should normally accept them.
  2. DGP alone (and not PEB) will send proposals for officers of and above the rank of IGP.
  3. Composition and functions of Police Establishment Committees have not been clarified. Court wanted police officers to have full autonomy in personnel matters.
Complaints Authority established at State and District levels
Comments
  1. Authorities are headed by bureaucrats at both levels – by Home Secretary at state level and DM at district level. Direction was that they should be headed by retired Judges.
  2. Authorities will make “recommendations” to state government for appropriate action. Direction was that these should be binding on state government.
Complaints Authority established at State and District levels
Comments
  1. Authorities are headed by bureaucrats at both levels – by Home Secretary at state level and DM at district level. Direction was that they should be headed by retired Judges.
  2. Authorities will make “recommendations” to state government for appropriate action. Direction was that these should be binding on state government.
12 Uttar Pradesh Constituted, vide GO’s dated 2.12.10, and 17.02.2011.
Again reconstituted on 26.7.13, accepting Ribeiro model. Commission has, in addition to prescribed members, one Cabinet Minister, Principal Secretary (Home), and Principal Secretary (Law) also.
Comments
  1. Commission not given authority to lay down broad policies, will only lay down “guiding principles”
  2. Will give only “suggestions” and not directions for preventive tasks and service-oriented functions.
  3. Independent members are ex-officio and. therefore, cannot be considered independent.
  4. Commission will not “function independent of Govt. control”, as was directed by Supreme Court.
  5. No indication that recommendations of Commission will be binding
  6. Commission has yet to hold a meeting. It is on paper only.
OM dated Dec.2, 2010 deals with selection/tenure of DGP,.
Comments
  1. DGP will be selected by a Committee comprising Chief Secy., Principal Secy.(Home) and Principal Secy. to CM.
  2. UPSC not involved in preparation of panel.
  3. Tenure will be “as far as possible” two years including superannuation. This is contrary to Court’s direction.
  4. DGP may be removed “in the public interest” which could be subjectively interpreted.
Tenure of two years given to field officers. Government however says that it has to transfer officers in “contingent circumstances and exigencies of ground situation”
Comments
  1. Officers may be removed “in public interest under special circumstances”.
  2. Tenure rule is being violated rather too frequently in actual practice.
No G.O. or O.M issued. Instead, the State Government issued a letter dated 07.09.2007 to the DGP stating that in the initial phase, the separation of crime investigation from law and order shall be implemented to Inspector-level police stations, and directing him to identify 4, 2 and 1 sub-inspector respectively for each of A, B and C category police stations, for investigation work. It, however, adds that no additional post shall be created for this purpose, which means that separation would be on paper only.
Comments
  1. Govt has passed on the buck to DGP; he cannot ensure separation unless Home Dept sanctions augmentation of staff.
  2. Govt. says there is lack of manpower and infrastructure.
Letter dated 12.03.2008 of Principal Secretary, Home, addressed to DGP, provides for the constitution of four different Police Establishment Boards, one each to deal with the State-level transfers of
(i) ASPs, (ii) DySPs, (iii) Inspectors, and (iv) SIs and below.
Comments
  1. The contents of this letter indicate that the Boards would deal only with transfers and not with other service-related matters envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. The Boards are also not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for police officers being subjected to illegal or irregular orders, or to generally review the functioning of the State police. There is no mention also that the State Government may interfere with the decisions of the Board only in exceptional cases and after recording its reasons for doing so.
  2. Vide another letter No.550/6-P-10-27(45)/06 dated 08.04.2010 of Principal Secretary, Home addressed to DGP, Police Establishment Boards were ordered to be constituted also for intra-Range and intra-District transfers of officers of and below the rank of Inspector. The jurisdiction of the Board, however, excludes the posting / transfers of officers posted / to be posted as officers incharge of Police Stations, for which concurrence of District Magistrate is prescribed.
  3. The functions of these Range and District-level Boards too are limited to transfers only and do not cover the other components of the Supreme Court directive.
  4. GO dated 26.12.10 constitutes a State level Estt Board to recommend transfer/posting of officers of and above rank of Addl SP. However, there is no indication that Govt will give “due weight” to these and “normally accept” them, as was mandated by the Court.
There are already several forums like State Human Rights Commission, SC / ST Commission, Minorities Commission, Women’s Commission, Backward Commission, Lok Ayukta at state level.
PCA not constituted on the ground that it will result in “multiplicity of forum creating confusion in the minds of public”.
 
13 West Bengal A Government Notification issued in 2010 notifying the constitution of the West Bengal State Security Commission, with one year as its term of appointment.
Comments
  1. Composition does not follow any of the three models mentioned in the Supreme Court order.
  2. The Commission is to be headed by the Health Minister, not by the Chief Minister who incidentally holds the Home portfolio himself.
  3. A retired High Court Judge and two non-officials are included in the Commission as Members but the criteria of their selection is not known.
The Government of West Bengal, Home Department, issued a letter (No.381 PS dated 30.03.2007) addressed to DGP, WB and CP, Kolkata, intimating the “principles to be followed for the selection of DGP and prescribing a minimum tenure for the incumbent.
Comments
  1. The zone of consideration includes four senior-most officers of the State cadre, instead of three.
  2. The order is silent about empanelment by UPSC.
  3. The criteria for selection, as laid down in this letter is sketchy and includes a vague and subjective element like “experience for leading the police force of the State”.
  4. The tenure of two years is subject to superannuation
The West Bengal Government, Home Department issued a letter (No.382-PS dated 30.03.2007) addressed to DGP, West Bengal and Commissioner of Police Kolkata, laying down the principles to be followed for the tenure of police officers on operational duties in the field.
Comments
  1. Conditions for premature removal of officers (before the expiry of two-year tenure) include vague and subjective elements like “exhibiting palpable bias”, “misuse of powers”, or “incapacity in discharge of official duties”.
  2. The provision relating to suspension could also be subject to misuse.
Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, vide his order No.46 dated 15.02.2008, formed separate investigation wings in ten Police Stations under Kolkata Police Commissionerate area; and DGP, WB, vide his order No.05 dated 29.04.2010, formed separate investigation wings in 20 Urban Police Stations, in the first phase.
Comments
Separation has not been effected so far in the remaining 38 Police Stations of Kolkata city.
The Government of West Bengal, Home Department, vide their letter No.383-PS dated 30.03.2007 constituted a West Bengal Police Establishment Board, and a separate Kolkata Police Establishment Board.
Govt. of West Bengal issued another Notification (No.1549-P.S. dated 14.11.2009) constituting a Kolkata Police Establishment Board
Comments
  1. The orders in respect of setting up of the Police Establishment Boards both for West Bengal Police and Kolkata Police are broadly in consonance with the directive except that the Boards are not authorized to function as forums of appeal on representations from police officers on service matters (other than transfers / postings) and on their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
The Government of West Bengal, vide its Notification No.2162-PL/PE-16S-36/05 dated 02.06.2010, constituted a State Level Complaints Authority.
Comments
  1. The composition of the Authority does not conform to the Supreme Court directive. The Authority sought to be created by West Bengal Government is to be a five-member body with three of them being serving officials (Home Secretary, DGP West Bengal and Commissioner of Police, Kolkata).
    The only non-official included as a Member is a retired DGP.
  2. According to the Supreme Court directive, the Authority is required to be headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court / High Court and it should have 3 to 5 non-officials as members, depending on the volume of complaints in the State. They have to be selected from out of a panel of names suggested by the State Human Rights Commission / Lokayukta / State Public Service Commission.
  3. The term of the Authority, as per the Notification, is only one year.
  4. No order regarding the constitution of the District-level Complaints Authorities has been issued so far.
West Bengal Police Bill has been drafted.
14 Delhi & Union Territories Order constituting SSC for all UTs (except Delhi) issued on 07.02.2013.
There will be separate SSC for every UT (except Delhi) with Union Home Secretary as Chairman.
Comments
  1. SSC for UTs are dominated by Govt. representatives. There is only one independent member, other members being Home Secretary, Chief Secy / Administrator and Joint Secretary (UT), MHA.
  2. SSC for Delhi is proposed to be headed by L.G. with Chief Minister as member. Other members include Leader of Opposition in Delhi Legislative Assembly, Jt Sec UT Division, Commissioner of Police and five independent members.
  1. Union Govt. is not in favour of involving UPSC in preparing the panel of officers for selection of DGP.
  2. Govt. also does not favour a fixed tenure and is opposed to giving that irrespective of superannuation on the ground that it would have legal and administrative repercussions.
Union Govt. agrees that senior level police functionaries should have a minimum tenure of two years but only “as far as possible”. The order is claimed to have been implemented in Delhi. Boards have been set up in all the UTs “as per availability of officers in a particular UT”. Govt. does not favour Board being given appellate functions. Notification No.14040/45/2009-UTP dated – March 2010) provides for the constitution of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) for Delhi and all the Union Territories.
  1. GOI has set up Public Grievance Commission for Delhi and PCA in all UTs
    PGC, through Govt. Resolution, has been designated as PCA for NCT of Delhi.
  2. PCAs for Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Lakshdweep will comprise only one Member, i.e., the Chairperson, who may be either a retired District Judge or a retired Civil Service officer of the rank of Additional Secretary or above; or a person having 10 years of experience in law as a Judicial officer, Public Prosecutor, Lawyer, or Professor of Law; or a retired officer with experience in Public Administration..
  3. PCA for Puducherry, A&N Islands and Chandigarh will comprise the Chairperson and two members. The Chairperson may be either a retired High Court / District Judge, or a retired Civil Service officer of the rank of Secretary. The two Members may be drawn from amongst (a) a person having 10 years of experience in law, either as Judicial officer, Public Prosecutor, Lawyer, or Professor of Law, (b) a person of repute and stature from the civil society, (c) a retired Police officers of appropriate rank..
  4. The provisions relating to these Authorities are at total variance from the Supreme Court directive. .
Police Act Drafting Committee headed by Soli Sorabjee had drafted Model Police Act in 2006. However, Delhi Police Bill has yet to be passed. A Bill was drafted by the MHA in 2010 for Delhi. Consultations were held and, another draft was prepared, but there is no legislation yet.. According to press reports, Delhi Govt. wants to dilute certain provisions of Bill.

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on March 31, 2014)
(In States which have passed Police Acts)

Sl. No. State State Security Commission
(Direction No.1)
Selection & Tenure of DGP
(Direction No.2)
Tenure of other Officers
(Direction No.3)
Separation of Investigation from law &order
(Direction No.4)
Police Establishment Board
(Direction No.5)
Police Complaints Authorities
(Direction No.6)
Remarks
1 Assam The Act [Sections 34 & 35] provides for a Commission.
Comments
  1. Leader of opposition not included in the composition.
  2. Method of selection of non-official members to ensure that the Commission is able to function independent of the government control, not spelt out in the Act.
  3. Will not evaluate police performance
  4. Report not required to be placed before the State legislature.
Provides for [Section 6].
Comments
  1. Selection to be made from amongst 5 senior most officers (not three).
  2. Empanelment for the post to be done by State Security Commission, not UPSC.
  3. Minimum tenure of only 1 year, and also subject to superannuation.
  4. Removal clauses include ‘inefficiency’ ‘negligence’, ‘misdemeanour, ‘public interest’, all liable to misuse.
  5. DGP can be removed without consulting Staff Security Commission.
Provides for [Section 12(3)]. Comments
  1. Tenure of only one year
  2. Limited to only District SPs and SHOs
  3. Removal clauses include ‘public interest’, ‘any contingency, which are liable to misuse.
Provides for [Section 55].
Comments
Mechanics of implementation not spelt out.
Provides for [Section 44].
Comments
Board not authorized to:
  1. Recommend postings / transfers of Addl. SP & above.
  2. Review police performance.
Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84].
Comments
  1. Methodology of selection of chairpersons and members not spelt out.
  2. Recommendations not binding on the concerned authorities.
Assam State Police Act, 2007 - in force from 18.09.07.
State Govt. have said that, in the light of observations made by the Thomas Committee, State Govt. have decided to revisit the Assam Police Act to make it conform to the directions of Supreme Court.
2 Bihar The Act [Section 23] provides for setting up a State Police Board, “within six months of the Act coming into force”.
Comments
  1. The composition of the Board (Section 24) does not conform to any of the three models suggested by the Supreme Court. It is a three-member (all officials) body of which the Chief Secretary is the chairman, the DGP a Member and the Home Secretary, the Member-Secretary.
  2. Its recommendations are not binding on the Government.
  3. Its report is not required to be placed before the State Legislature.
For the selection of DGP, the Act [Section 6] prescribes “appointment from out of a panel of officers who are either already working in the rank of DGP or are found suitable for promotion to the rank of DGP” by a Committee constituted under the provision of AIS Rules, 1961.
Empanelment of officers by the UPSC or any other independent body is not required.
Comments
  1. The criteria for empanelment is also not spelt out.
  2. The minimum tenure of two years is also not made mandatory. It will only “generally” be so, not necessarily.
  3. Conditions for premature removal of DGP include subjective considerations, such as incapacitation for “any other reasons” and “administrative grounds”, which are subject to misuse.
Section 10 provides for a minimum tenure of two years for officers of the ranks of Constables to Inspectors.
Section 30 provides a tenure (“generally”, not minimum) of 2 years for supervisory police officers.
Comments
  1. Conditions for premature removal include subjective considerations, such as incapacitation for “any other reasons” or “administrative grounds”, which are subject to misuse. Need to fill vacancies “caused by transfers” is also violative of the Supreme Court guidelines.
The Act [Section 36] provides for the constitution of ‘Special Investigation Units’.
Comments
  1. These units will take up investigations only of specified crimes instead of all crimes, many of which will continue to be investigated into by the law & order staff.
  2. The provision, thus, does not fully satisfy the Supreme Court direction.
The Act [Section 10] provides for the creation of Transfer Committees (Police Establishment Boards) for officers of the ranks of Constables to Inspectors.
Comments
  1. For higher ranks of District SPs, Range DIGs and Zonal IGs, there is no Board provided for. transfers and postings of these officers will, thus, be governed by rules framed by the Government from time to time.
  2. Even the Committees constituted under Section 10 of the Act will deal with only transfers and postings, and not with other service-related matters.
  3. Those are not “departmental bodies”, in their composition.
  4. They are not also authorized to act as forums of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding service matters or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
  5. They are not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.
Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84], but: The Act [Section 59] provides for the constitution of a “District Accountability Authority”, for each district.
Comments
  1. There is no provision for a State-level Complaints Authority.
  2. The district-level Authorities, in their composition, do not conform to the Supreme Court directive. Instead of being headed by a retired District Judge, their Chairpersons will be the District Magistrates concerned.
  3. The other members are also all officials with no representation of non-officials.
  4. The recommendations of the Authorities will not be binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84], but:
Bihar Police Act 2007 was passed by State.

State has defiantly recorded that Courts have not been conferred with powers to make policy decisions.
Act has been challenged at state level.

3 Chhattisgarh Provides for the constitution of a State Police Commission [Sections 16].
Comments
  1. The composition does not fully conform to any of the three models suggested by the SC, in that the Leader of the Opposition is not included as a Member. There is no judicial element also included as a Member.
  2. The Commission is given only advisory role in its functions.
  3. Its reports are not required to be put up before the State Legislature.
Provides for [Section 12].
Comments
  1. It is silent about empanelment of officers by UPSC
  2. Provision implies that the two year tenure is subject to superannuation.
  3. Silent about consultation with SSC before removing the DGP.
  4. Removal clauses include “administrative exigencies” which are liable to misuse.
Provides for [Section 14].
Comments
  1. Provision limited to SHOs and District SPs. No provision for minimum tenure of 2 years for IG in-charge of Zone, or DIG in-charge of Range.
  2. Removal clauses include “administrative exigencies” which is prone to misuse.
Provides for [Section 32] the creation of “Special Crime Investigation Units”
Comments
  1. No specific provision for separation at the police station level in urban areas.
Provides for [Section 22].
Comments
  1. The functions are advisory and recommendatory in respect of transfers / postings of DySPs.
  2. Intra-District and intra-Range transfers of even subordinate ranks (Inspector and below) do not fall in the purview of the Board.
  3. No provision that the State Government shall interfere with the decisions of the Board in only exceptional cases, after recording its reasons for doing so.
  4. No provision authorizing the Board to make appropriate recommendations to the State Govt. regarding posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP.
  5. No mention of review of the functioning of State Police.
Provides for [Section 38 to 43].
Comments
  1. Only a State-level Police Accountability Authority.
  2. No provision for constituting district-level Authorities.
  3. No provision for selection of the head of State-level Authority (a retired Judge) out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
  4. Similarly, no provision for obtaining a panel of names from the State HRC / Lokayukta / State PSC for selection of other members of the Authority.
  5. Recommendations of the Authority are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
Chhattisgarh Police Act legislated – Notified on 28.09.07
4 Gujarat Provides for the constitution of a SSC [Section 32A].
Comments
  1. Its composition does not comply with any of the models suggested by SC, in that the Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly is not included as a member. There is no judicial element also included. Also, the number of government functionaries (5) far outweighs the number of non-officials (2).
  2. Role is only advisory in laying down policy guidelines.
  3. Does not have the power to make binding recommendations.
  4. Annual report is not required to be placed before the Legislature; it has only to be submitted to the State Government ‘for consideration and appropriate action’.
Provides for [Section 5A].
Comments
  1. No empanelment by the UPSC. Instead, it will be done by a Screening Committee of the State Government.
  2. The zone of consideration is not limited to three officers.
  3. Selection criteria laid down by the Supreme Court ignored.
  4. Tenure of DGP will be ‘ordinarily’ 2 years irrespective of his date of superannuation, but the use of the word ‘ordinarily’ is violative of the SC direction.
  5. Some removal clauses include subjective elements, which could be prone to misuse.
  6. No provision for consultation with State Security Commission before removing the DGP from the post.
Provides for [Section 5B].
Comments
  1. Tenure is two years ordinarily. The word ‘ordinarily’ is violative of the SC direction.
  2. Some clauses for premature removal include subjective elements, which could be prone to misuse.
Provides for [Section 7A].
Comments
  1. Leaves the decision about separation completely at the State Government’s discretion.
  2. Mechanics of separation not spelt out.
Provides for [Section 32 D].
Comments
  1. The Board is not an entirely departmental body, as envisaged in the SC direction.
  2. The power of the Board with regard to transfers / postings is limited to the rank of Inspector and Sub-Inspector only.
  3. No mention that the State Govt. may interfere with the decisions of the Board in exceptional cases only, after recording its reasons for doing so.
  4. The Board is not to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their promotion / transfer etc. or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
  5. The Board is not authorized to generally review the functioning of State Police.
Provides for [Sections 32F, G, H & I].
Comments
  1. Composition of the Authorities different from the SC direction
  2. District Authorities have District SP as the Chairman instead of a retired District Judge.
  3. No provision for obtaining a panel of names for the chairmanship of the district-level Authorities from the Chief Justice of the High Court.
  4. There is no non-official member included in the district-level Authorities. On the other hand, two MLAs have been included.
  5. The State-level Authority could be headed by either a retired High Court Judge or a retired Principal Secretary to the Government. The serving Principal Secretary, Home and a police officer of or above the rank of ADGP will also be member of the Authorities.
  6. Recommendations of the State and the District-level Authorities are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
Bombay Police (Gujarat) Amendment Act legislated – Notified on 23.03.08
5 Haryana Sections 25, 26 and 30 deal with composition and functions of State Police Board.
Comments
  1. Members will include either a Retd. High Court Judge or the Advocate General
  2. The functions of the Board are to only ‘aid and advise’ the State Government.
  3. No mention that the report on the Board on performance of the State police will be placed before the State legislature.
Provides for [Section 6].
Comments
  1. Specific criteria for selection not enumerated and role of UPSC ignored in the selection.
  2. Tenure is only for one year, instead of two years.
  3. Selected DGP can be removed without consultation with State Police Board.
Provides for [Section 13].
Comments
  1. The tenure of an IGP of a Range or SP of a District is only one year, instead of two years.
  2. No fixed tenure provided for other officers on operational duties in the field.
  3. Grounds for premature removal include the need to fill up a vacancy caused by promotion, transfer or retirement of any other officer, which is violative of the spirit of the Supreme Court direction.
Provides for [Section 43] creation of specialized Crime Investigation Units.
Comments
  1. Units only at district level, for the investigation of only economic and heinous crimes.
  2. All other crimes will continue to be investigated by the police handling law and order also.
Provides for [Section 34], the creation of a Police Establishment Committee for ‘administrative matters’ .
Comments
  1. Does not specify whether or not it will have powers to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers.
  2. No provision to make appropriate recommendations to the State Government regarding posting and transfers of officers of and above the rank of SP
  3. The Police Establishment Committee is not authorized to act as a forum of appeal or disposing of representations from police officers regarding transfer / postings etc. or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
  4. It is also not authorized to generally review the functioning of the State Police.
Provides for [Section 68] for the constitution of a District Police Complaint Authority for each district “as and when required”.
Also provides for [Section 59] for establishing a Police Complaints Authority at the State level,
Comments
  1. Composition of the district-level Authorities is not specified in the Act.
  2. Composition of State-level Authority is not in consonance with Court’s directives.
  3. The State-level Authority will be headed by either a retired Judge or a retired Secretary to Government or a lawyer with 20 years of experience in criminal law. (State level PCA constituted vide notification dated 16.8.2010 is headed by a retired IAS officer).
  4. Recommendations of the Authority are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84], but: Haryana Police Act legislated – Notified on 02.06.08
6 Himachal Pradesh Provides for [Section 48] a State Police Board.
Comments
  1. Composition does not conform to any of the models recommended by the Supreme Court.
  2. There is no judicial element in the composition.
  3. The number of officials (10) far outweighs the number of independent numbers (3).
Provides for [Section 6].
Comments
  1. No role for UPSC assigned in the selection process.
  2. Act provides for a ‘Screening Committee’ headed by the Chief Secretary to prepare panel for the selection of DGP.
  3. No minimum tenure provided.
  4. Removal clauses include ‘administrative exigencies in the larger public interest’ which is prone to be misused.
  5. Act is silent about consultation with the State Police Board before the DGP is removed from the post.
Provides for [Section 12].
Comments
  1. Minimum tenure rule not made applicable to Zonal IGPs and Range DIGs.
  2. Removal clauses include ‘administrative exigencies in the larger public interest’ which is prone to be misused.
Provides for [Section 78] creation of a criminal investigation unit in every police station for investigation of only “serious offences’.
Comments
  1. It will not amount to partial separation of investigation from law and order functions, as bulk of crime will continue to be investigated by law and order police.
Provides for creation of a State Police Establishment Committee [Section 56].
Comments
  1. The Committee is authorized to approve postings and transfers “with the prior approval of the Government”.
  2. No provision for the Committee to act as forum of appeal for disposing of representations of police officers regarding service matters other than transfers, or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
  3. Also the Committee is not authorized to generally review the functioning of State Police.
Creation provided for [Sections 93, 94 & 95].
Comments
  1. The composition of the State-level Police Complaints Authority is not in accordance with the direction of the SC.
  2. The Act does not specify the powers of the State-level Authority, leaving them to be “as may be prescribed”.
  3. The District-level Authorities also, in their composition, will be different from that envisaged in the Supreme Court directive. They will be headed by the Divisional Commissioners, with non-official members who will all be retired officials.
  4. District-level Authorities is not authorized to itself inquire into any allegations of misconduct by police officers.
  5. The recommendations of the District-level Authorities will not be binding on the administrative authority concerned.
Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007
7 Karnataka Commission has been constituted.
Comments
  1. It has no independent members from civil society.
  2. It is heavily tilted in favour of Govt. and will therefore not be able to function “independent of Govt. control”.
DGP will be selected by State Govt. High Power Committee comprising Home Minister, Law Minister, Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, DPAR. DGP will have tenure of not less than two years.
Comments
  1. UPSC not given any role in preparation of panel.
  2. Tenure is not irrespective of superannuation.
Officers on operational duties given fixed tenure of one year.
Comments
  1. Tenure is of one year only.
Every police station will have two units, one dealing with crime investigation and other dealing with law & order.
Comments
  1. SP has been authorized to divert these officers.
  2. No clear indication that there would be augmentation in staff to facilitate separation.
Board constituted.
Comments
  1. It will have only three senior police officers as against four recommended by Court.
  2. No mention of Board functioning as forum of appeal.
Authorities constituted.
Comments
  1. District Authority is headed by Regional Commissioner and not by Retd. District and Sessions Judge.
  2. SP is member of District Authority. He may not have time for this job.
  3. No indication that recommendations of Authorities will be binding.
Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2012, received assent of Governor on August 8, 2012.
8 Kerala Constituted under Sections 24/25 of the Act.
Later, Govt. constituted SSC vide GO issued on 26.11.2011
Section 18 of Act provides for selection and appointment of DGP.
Comments
  1. It does not give any role to UPSC in preparation of panel.
  2. DGP’s tenure is subject to superannuation.
Section 97 of Act gives min. tenure to DGP and other officers on field duties. Separation provided for in Section 23 has been sanctioned in Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode.
Proposal to extend the same in other districts under consideration
Board constituted under Section 105.
Comments
  1. It has no powers to decide transfer /posting of officers of and below the rank of Dy.SP.
  2. Not authorized to make recommendations regarding posting/ transfer of officers of and above rank of SP.
  3. Appellate authority is limited to officers of and below rank of Inspector.
Authorities constituted under Section 110 of the Act were reconstituted vide GO dated 17.2.12.
Comments
  1. Authorities have presence of serving police officers and bureaucrats – not envisaged in the Court’s directions.
Kerala Police Act 2011 passed.
9 Meghalaya State Security Commission dealt with in Section 36 of Act
Comments
  1. Commission is heavily tilted in favour of govt.
  2. There is no judicial element.
  3. Recommendations shall be binding “to the extent feasible”.
Section 6 of Act deals with selection/tenure of DGP.
Comments
  1. UPSC not given role in preparing panel
  2. DGP given tenure of one year only
  3. He may be shifted in “public interest”
Field Officers given tenure of two years. State has no City having population of more than ten lakhs. Board constituted.
Comments
  1. Board does not have authority to decide transfer /postings of junior officers. It can only “recommend”.
  2. Review Committee will make recommendations about transfer/ posting of officers of the rank of IG/ Addl.DG.
  3. Appellate Authority of Board will be subject to Review Committee headed by Chief Secy.
State level Accountability Commission set up.
Comments
  1. No mention of District level Authority.
Meghalaya Police Act, 2010 notified on 7.2.2011.
10 Mizoram Constituted .
Comments
However, composition is not as per notification. No judicial element.
Notification issued
(DGP is appointed by MHA)
Notification issued Exemption sought in view of thin population of State Constituted Agreed in principle. Govt. has proposed names of retired Dist. Judges for Dist.Level PCA. Mizoram Police Act, 2011 passed on Dec. 19, 2011.
11 Punjab Constituted [Section 27(2)].
Comments
  1. It does not adhere to any of the three models suggested by the Supreme Court.
  2. Composed of only government functionaries. There are no independent members on the Board, nor a sitting or retired judge or the Leader of Opposition.
  3. Recommendations are not binding on the State Government.
Provides for [Sections 6(1) & 6(2).
Comments
  1. Zone of consideration is not limited to three senior-most officers.
  2. Silent on the empanelment as also the selection criteria.
  3. The minimum tenure of two years is subject to superannuation.
  4. DGP can be removed prematurely “for special reasons, to be recorded in writing”
  5. Consultation with State Security Commission for the removal of DGP not required.
Provides for [Section 15(1)].
Comments
  1. Police officers on operational duties are only assured one year’s minimum tenure, ‘extendable to a maximum period of three years”.
Complied.[Section 36(1)]
Implemented in five districts, vide letter dated 7.4.2007. Process being expanded.
Constituted [Section 32(1)].
Comments
  1. The Board not authorized to make recommendations on postings/ transfers of officers of the rank of SP and above.
  2. No provision also for the Board to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers regarding their promotion, transfer or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
Created [Section 54] for both the State and District levels PCAs,
Comments
Their compsotion /functions are not specified.
Punjab Police Act, 2007 – in force from 20.02.08
12 Rajasthan Provides for [Sections 21, 22 & 26].
Comments
  1. The role of the Commission is sought to be limited only to ‘advising’ and ‘assisting’ the State Government.
  2. The composition does not conform to any of the models noted in the SC direction.
  3. There is no judicial element included in the Commission.
  4. An officer not below the rank of ADGP is made Member-Secretary of the Commission, instead of DGP.
  5. Commission not constituted yet.
Provides for [Section 13].
Comments
  1. The Act omits the provision for empanelment of officers by UPSC.
  2. The parameters for empanelment are also not specified.
  3. Silent about consultation with State Security Commission before removing the DGP.
Complied. [Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 & 19] Provides for [Section 42] creation of a separate Crime Investigation Unit in each Police Station.
Comments
  1. Leaves the discretion to the State Government which may decide it from time to time.
  2. Crime Investigation Units in a metropolitan area shall be established within “a period not exceeding five years from the notification of a metropolitan area”.
Constituted [Section 28].
Comments
  1. The Board will only prescribe guidelines for transfer of subordinate ranks, with the approval of the State Government, not decide on transfer / postings as such.
  2. The Board authorized only to prepare proposals for transfers of Addl. SPs, not of SPs and other senior officers.
  3. No provision for the Board to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers on service matters including their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
  4. Not to undertake a review of police functioning.
Provides for [Section 62 & 63].
Comments
  1. There are variations from the Supreme Court direction in the composition of District and State Police Accountability Committees.
  2. The Committees are not to be headed by judicial members.
  3. The selection of Members of both the State and District-level Authorities, is left entirely to the discretion of the State Government – not from out of panels to be prepared in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction.
  4. The recommendations of the Authorities are not binding on the concerned authority. The Committees are authorized only to make recommendations.
  5. PCAs yet to be constituted.
Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 – Notified on 01.11.07
13 Sikkim Provides for constitution [Sections 39, 40 & 41].
Comments
  1. In its composition, the official members constitute a large majority.
DGP to be selected by a Screening Committee comprising Chief Secretary, Addl.Chief Secretary (Plg) and Principal Secretary (Personnel) under [Section 6].
Comments:
  1. UPSC’s role in the empanelment process ignored.
  2. The tenure of DGP is subject to superannuation.
  3. The DGP could be removed prematurely without consultation with the State Security Commission.
  4. Provisions such as ‘suspension from service’, and ‘administrative exigencies in larger public interest’, are prone to misuse.
Notification dated 28.12.2006 provides two year tenure to IG, SP and SHO
Section 11 of Act provides two year tenure to SP and SHO.
Comments
  1. Provisions such as ‘suspension from service’, and ‘administrative exigencies in larger public interest’, are prone to misuse.
Provides for separation [Section 97] by creating a Special Crime Investigation Unit at PS level in such crime-prone areas or urban areas as “considered necessary”. Section 52 of Act provides for PEB headed by DGP and comprising three other senior police officers.
Comments
  1. The transfers / postings of DySPs are kept out of the Committee’s purview.
  2. The Committee is also not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding service matters other than transfers / postings, and regarding their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders.
Provides for [Sections 132, 133, 138, 140 & 141] a State-level Police Complaints Authority only in view of small size of the State and low volume of complaints
Comments
  1. Recommendations of the Authority are not to be binding on the administrative authority concerned.
Sikkim Police Act legislated – Notified on 30.07.08
14 Tripura Provides for a State Police Board, [[Sections 20].
Comments:
  1. Its composition does not comply with any of the models suggested by SC, in that the Leader of the Opposition is not included.
  2. Recommendations of the Board are not binding.
  3. Report of the Board is not required to be placed before the State Legislature
Provides for [Section 6].
Comments
  1. No role of UPSC in empanelment of officers.
  2. No empanelment by any other body also.
  3. Tenure is subject to superannuation.
  4. DGP can be removed without consultation with the State Police Board.
  5. Ground of “suspension from service” is prone to misuse.
  6. Ground of‘inefficiency or negligence prima-facie established after a preliminary enquiry’ not found in the SC directive. The nature of such a preliminary enquiry has not been spelt out in the Act.
Provides for [Section 11].
Comments
  1. Minimum tenure not applicable to IGPs incharge of Zones and DIGs incharge of Ranges.
  2. Ground of ‘suspension from service’ is prone to misuse.
  3. Ground of ‘inefficiency or negligence prima-facie established after a preliminary enquiry’ not found in the SC directive.
Provides for [Sections 50-55] separation of investigation functions .
Comments
  1. No specific provision for not diverting the personnel of crime units to law and order duties.
Provides for a Police Establishment Committee [Section 27].
Comments
  1. It does not specify that the Committee shall decide all transfers, postings and other service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of DySP.
  2. No provision for the Committee to act as a forum of appeal for disposing of complaints from police officers regarding their being subjected to illegal orders. It has only to make appropriate recommendations to the competent authority in such cases.
  3. No provision also for the Committee to review the functioning of the State Police.
Provides for [Sections 59] only one Police Accountability Commission for the entire State.
Comments
  1. No provision for District-level Complaints Authorities.
  2. No provision for choosing the Chairperson from out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
  3. No provision also for selection of members from a panel of names prepared by the State Human Rights Commission / Lok Ayukta / State Public Service Commission.
  4. No provision specifying that the recommendations of the Commission shall be binding on the administrative authorities concerned.
Tripura Police Act, 2007 is in force.
15 Uttarakhand Provides for a State Police Board [Section 29].
Comments
  • There is no judicial element in the composition of the Board.
  • The number of official functionaries in the Board outweighs the number of non-official / independent members.
  • The Act stipulates that the Board’s functions are simply to provide ‘suggestions’ and ‘advice’ to the State Government.
  • Its recommendations are not binding.
  • Provides for [Section 20].
    Comments
    1. Does not provide for selection of DGP from a panel of names prepared by the UPSC. Instead, it stipulates a ‘screening committee’ ‘constituted by the State Government’, to prepare a panel of officers for selection as DGP.
    2. The tenure of DGP as 2 years is subject to superannuation.
    3. Premature removal possible without consultation with SSC.
    4. Premature removal is possible for ‘gross inefficiency and negligence’ where prima facie a case of serious nature has been established after a preliminary enquiry. The nature of such a preliminary enquiry has not been outlined in the Act.
    Provides for [Section 28].
    Comments
    1. The tenure of officer in charge of Police Station is limited to a minimum of one year instead of two years.
    2. The proviso of transferring any police officer from his post before expiry of tenure ‘in public interest’ is prone to be misused.
    Provides for [Section 50] creation of special crime investigation units for police district or police stations. Provides for [Section 38].
    Comments
    1. State Government given broad overriding power over decisions of the Police Establishment Committee. However, the Government has to record its reasons for doing so.
    2. It is not authorized to function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from police officers regarding service matters or their being subject to illegal or irregular orders.
    3. It is also not authorised to review the functioning of the State Police.
    Provides for [Section 64], State-level PCA.
    Comments
    1. The Act is silent about constituting Police Complaints Authorities at the District level.
    2. The State-level Authority is not to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court /Supreme Court, to be selected from out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice.
    3. Similarly, the members are not required to be selected from out of a panel of names prepared by the State Human Rights Commission / Lok Ayukta / State Public Service Commission.
    4. The recommendations of the Authority are not binding on the administrative authorities concerned
    Uttarakhand Police Act – in force from 04.01.08