States’ Report Card
(Based on Thomas Committee Report)

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on December 31, 2020)
(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 five independent members (Sorabjee Model). Recommendations of SSC would be binding.
Comments.
  1. Procedure for selection of “independent members” not clarified.
  2. There is no retired Judge in the SSC.
  3. No mention of SSC preparing a Report to be tabled before State Legislature.
State Government claims to have implemented first component of direction regarding selection of DGP.
Comments
  1. Asked GOI to issue clarifications / amendments to AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958.
    Post-bifurcation, AP passed Police (Reforms) Act, 2014 which legislates only on the appointment of DGP. Complies with SC directive except the additional sub-section of “on other administrative grounds to be recorded in writing” for the removal of DGP. This could be used arbitrarily.
    In December 2017, however, AP abolished the State Police Act and issued an ordinance whereby it could appoint DGP on its own without any intervention by the UPSC.
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 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. Their recommendations will be binding. Government drafted a Police Act Amendment Bill in 2008, but it was never tabled.
1 A Telangana Telangana High Court has been directing the State Government to constitute SSC since 2016, but there has been no forward movement. Telangana has passed ‘Selection and Appointment of Director General of Police Act, 2018’, which states that the DGP shall be selected and appointed by the State Govt and that he shall have a minimum tenure of two years subject to retirement.
Comments
  1. There is no provision of UPSC preparing the panel.
  2. Appointment of DGP is contingent on retirement and not irrespective of superannuation, as laid down by the Court
Telangana High Court has been directing the State Government to constitute PCA since 2016, but there has been no forward movement.
2 Arunachal Pradesh Constituted vide Notification dated 27.02.07, choosing the model laid down in the Model Police Act.
Comments
  1. Apart from two official members (Chief Secretary and DGP), State Govt. added two more (Home Commissioner and the IGP) in the Commission.
  2. SSC recommendations are not binding.
  3. An earlier notification issued in 2006 was fully compliant with Sorabjee Model, but that was superseded by 2007 notification.
Notification dated 18.12.06 issued, but as MHA is the cadre controlling authority, notification clarifies that after the UPSC shortlists candidates for DG, MHA is to make that available to the state government for selection of DGP. 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 is of academic interest only. Notification dated 27.02.07 issued, separating investigation from law and order function in nine densely populated urban police stations of Itanagar, Naharlagun, Ziro, Aalo, Pasighat, Khonsa, Bomdila, Namsai and Tezu.

The earlier notification of 2006 provided for separation in seventeen police stations.

Constitution provided for, vide Notification dated 14.12.06.

Comments
There is no mention of PAB reviewing the functioning of police in the state.

Constitution of a State-level Authority provided for, vide Notification dated 27.02.07. Its recommendations are binding.
Comments
  1. Under Secy of Vigilance Dept will serve as Secy, State PCA.This may impinge on its independence.
  2. Complaint Authorities at the district-level not provided for.
Arunachal Pradesh Police Act was 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, not included in the composition, as prescribed by NHRC.
  2. Not clarified that recommendations of Board will be binding.
  3. No mention of SSC preparing report to be placed before Legislature.

    In its last 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.
  3. No mention of requirement to consult SSC to remove DGP prematurely.
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.
  3. No mention of PEB reviewing the functioning of police in the state.
  4. On Aug. 18, 2014, Goa Transfer and Postings of Officers Bill was introduced in the Assembly. It sets up a Goa Services Board which can recommend transfer and posting of officers of different departments including the police. This clashes with the PEB.
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
comments

Home Department issued a memo on July 23, 2014, stating that no complaint shall be inquired into by the Authority in which Departmental/Magisterial/Judiciary Inquiry has already been initiated.

Goa Police Bill 2008 introduced in State Legislature. Goa Police Bill 2008 introduced in State Legislature. Select Committee constituted to examine the Bill. The Bill however lapsed in 2012. State Government is reportedly drafting a revised Police Bill.
4 Jammu & Kashmir Not complied.

State Govt. in an affidavit filed in April 2007, sought exemption from implementation of this directive in view of the security situation in the State.
It said that establishing such a body would destabilize the current system of coordination and control between the Army, CAPF and the State Police.

With J&K becoming a UT on October 31, 2019, J&K will become part of the Union Territories Security Commission.

DGP J&K is empaneled and appointed by the Government of India. It is claimed that the tenure of IGP and other officers is two years under the existing orders. State Government 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.
Another order issued on 19.04.2017 in supersession of previous orders.
Comments
  1. Board has DGP and nine other senior police officers (Court visualized DGP and four other senior officers only).
  2. Regarding postings and transfers of officers of the rank of DySP and below, order is silent about State Government’s power to interfere with Board’s decisions.
  3. Order is not clear on PEB’s power to recommend transfers of officers of rank of SP and above.
  4. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of State Police.
Not complied.

State Govt. has moved application before the Supreme Court for suspending the implementation of the direction. Its argument is that such an Authority would mean an opening to separatist elements to lodge false complaints against the police. Besides, the State has already sufficient oversight mechanisms like SHRC and Vigilance Commission.

comments
May be favorably considered.
Jammu and Kashmir Police Bill 2013 drafted and made available for public feedback. There has been no further development.
5 Jharkhand Created, vide notification dated 31.12.06.
comments
  1. The order does not mention anywhere that the recommendations of the Commission shall be binding.
  2. No mention also that the Commission’s report on evaluation of police performance will be placed before the State legislature.
No order issued.
State Government has expressed its concern over two year tenure to DGP.
In Dec. 2012, State Government said in its affidavit that it is awaiting “guidelines” from the UPSC.
Order issued, vide notification dated 27.02.07 providing for minimum tenure of two years for police officers on operational duties in the field.
comments
However, the order says that two year tenure is “generally” granted.
Vide 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 Court’s direction that State Government may interfere with decisions of 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.
  3. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.
Constituted, both at State and District-levels, vide Resolution dated 03.04.07.
comments
  1. However, resolution does not make recommendations of Complaints Authorities binding.
  2. Composition contrary to Court’s directive. Authorities, both at the State and District levels, are not headed by Judges.
Police Bill is reportedly 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.
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. Additional staff will be used both for investigation and law & order.
  2. Separate staff for investigation not provided for.
Created vide orders dated 14.2.07.
comments
  1. The Board is not authorized to finally decide on transfer / postings of junior officers. The order mandates that all decisions of the Board should be forwarded to the State Govt. “before implementation”.
  2. 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”.
  3. 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.
  4. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.
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 retired 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 Manipur Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07.
comments
  1. No mention that its recommendation will be binding.
  2. No mention of Commission preparing a report, evaluating performance of the state police, and placing that before State Legislature.
Order dated 28.12.06 issued.
Minimum tenure notified.
comments
Tenure is subject to 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.
  4. No mention of Board’s power to review functioning of police.
Constituted vide Order dated 31.03.07.
comments
  1. The independent members of the State-level Authority are all retired bureaucrats and not drawn from civil society.
  2. Recommenda-tions of the Complaints Authorities are not binding on the authorities concerned.
Manipur Police Bill, 2007 was drafted. No further progress thereafter.
8 Nagaland Constituted vide Notification dated 30.03.07.
comments
  1. Notification does not state that recommendations will be binding.
  2. SSC 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.
As per the Court’s directives.
Notification dated 30.03.07 issued.
As per the Court’s directives.
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.
9 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 Lokpal 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.
Odisha Police Bill 2015 was drafted but is yet to be passed.
10 Uttar Pradesh Constituted, vide GO 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
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) Dy SPs, (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”.
11 West Bengal 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.
  4. SSC recommendations “shall ordinarily be binding”. The word “ordinarily” provides an escape clause to state govt.
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, are sketchy and vague.
  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.
  2. No mention of power to review functioning of police.
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 a five-member body with three of them serving officials (Home Secretary, DGP West Bengal and Commissioner of Police, Kolkata). The only non-official included as 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.
  5. No mention that recommendations of PCA will be binding.
West Bengal Police Bill was drafted in 2007 but was not tabled. A new Bill is reportedly being drafted.
12 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 has been implemented in Delhi. Boards have been set up in all the UTs “as per availability of officers in a particular UT”. Composition varies in different UTs owing to divergent police/ administrative hierarchies.
Govt. does not favour Board being given appellate functions.
Notification No.14040/45/2009-UTP dated – March 2010) provided for the constitution of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) for Delhi and all the Union Territories.
  1. GOI set up Public Grievance Commission for Delhi and PCA in all UTs.
    PGC, through Govt. Resolution, was designated as PCA for NCT of Delhi.
  2. Subsequently, through another notification issued on January 29, 2018, a single Police Complaints Authority for Delhi was constituted. It will have a Chairperson who would be a retired High Court Judge and three other members. Mandate will be to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police personnel.
    Recommendations of the PCA shall ordinarily be binding unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing, government decides to disagree.
  3. comments
    1. There is a single PCA for Delhi. Court directive required PCA at state and district level.
    2. PCA recommendations are “ordinarily binding”.
Police Act Drafting Committee headed by Soli Sorabjee had drafted Model Police Act in 2006. However, Delhi Police Bill has yet to be passed.

Status of Compliance of Supreme Court’s Directions (As on December 31, 2019)
(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 five senior-most officers (not three).
  2. Empanelment for the post to be done by State Security Commission, not UPSC.
  3. Minimum tenure of only one year, and also subject to superannuation.
  4. Removal clauses include ‘inefficiency’ ‘negligence’, ‘misdemeanour, and ‘public interest’, all liable to misuse.
  5. DGP can be removed without consulting State 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].
All metropolitan police stations to have a Special Crime Investigation unit for organized, economic and heinous crimes. Besides, special investigation cells will be set up in district headquarters for serious crimes.
Provides for [Section 44].
Comments
Board not authorized to
  1. Recommend postings / transfers of Addl. SP & above.
  2. Function as a forum of appeal
  3. Review police performance.
Constituted [Sections 70, 72, 78 & 84].
PCAs established at state and district levels
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 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 could be misused. 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’ in crime infested areas for economic and heinous offences.
Comments
  1. These units will take up investigations only of specified crimes instead of all crimes, many of which will continue to be investigated by the law & order staff.
  2. The provision does not fully satisfy Supreme Court’s 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. 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.
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 Chairperson will be the District Magistrate.
  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.
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 as a Member.
  2. The Commission has only advisory role.
  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 by UPSC
  2. 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 two 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 within 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 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 2007 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 is not included as a member. There is no judicial element either. 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 “ordinarily” be two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The use of the word “ordinarily” is violative of the SC direction.
  5. Removal clauses include subjective elements, which could be misused.
  6. No provision for consultation with State Security Commission before removing DGP from the post.
Provides for [Section 5B].
comments
  1. Tenure is two years ordinarily. The word “ordinarily” is contrary to 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 to 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, it includes an officer of Home Department.
  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 Chairman instead of a retired District Judge.
  3. There is no non-official member in the district-level Authorities. On the other hand, two MLAs have been included.
  4. 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.
  5. Recommendations of the State and the District-level Authorities are not binding.
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 violates 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 for 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 review the functioning of the State Police.
Provides for [Section 68] 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. 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).
  3. Composition is not in consonance with Court’s directive.
  4. Recommendations of the Authority are not binding.
Haryana Police Act 2007 legislated – Notified on 02.06.08 Haryana Police (Amendment) Bill 2014 provides for district level PCAs.
6 Himachal Pradesh Provides for [Section 48] a State Police Board.
  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).
  4. Recommendations shall normally be binding.
Provides for [Section 6].
comments
  1. Act provides for a ‘Screening Committee’ headed by the Chief Secretary to prepare panel for the selection of DGP.
  2. No role for UPSC in the selection process.
  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 amount to only partial separation of investigation from law and order functions.
Provides for creation of a State Police Establishment Committee [Section 56].
comments
  1. The Committee is authorized to approve rather than order postings and transfers of non-gazetted officers.
  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, are 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 not authorized to directly inquire into any allegations of misconduct by police officers.
  5. The recommendations of the District-level Authorities will not be binding.
Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007 was passed.
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”.
  3. No provision for preparation of an Annual Report
DGP will be selected by a State Govt. High Powered Committee comprising Home Minister, Law Minister, Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, DPAR.
DGP will have tenure of two years subject to superannuation.
comments
  1. UPSC not given any role in preparation of panel.
  2. Tenure is not irrespective of superannuation.
  3. DGP may be removed by State Government through a written order specifying reasons. No mention of requirement to consult SSC.
Officers on operational duties given fixed tenure of one year only, which is against the direction of Supreme Court. 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. Can function as Board of Appeal.
  3. Authorised to generally review the functioning of police.
Authorities constituted.
comments
  1. State PCAs should be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.
  2. District PCA is headed by Deputy Commissioner and not by Retd. District and Sessions Judge.
  3. SP is member of District Authority. He may not have time for this job.
  4. 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
comments
  1. There is no mention of selection panel for independent members. They are to be nominated by Governor.
  2. State Government may “fully or partially reject or modify” any recommendation of SSC.
  3. No provision for preparation of annual report.
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. 2) DGP’s tenure is subject to superannuation.
  3. Grounds for removal indicated but consultation with SSC not mentioned.
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. Can decide on transfer, posting and promotions of personnel up to the rank of Inspector. No power to decide transfer/posting 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.
  4. Authorized to review functioning of State Police.
Authorities at State and District levels constituted under Section 110 of the Act, vide GO dated 17.2.12.
comments
  1. Authorities have presence of serving police officers and bureaucrats; this was not envisaged in the Court’s directions.
  2. Recommendations of the Authorities are binding.
Kerala Police Act 2011 was passed.
9 Maharashtra Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance ) Act, 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. They may not show required degree of objectivity.
  3. Composition does not conform to any of the three models.
  4. Recommendations of SSC will be “advisory in nature”.
  5. No mention of annual report.
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.
  3. Grounds for removal indicated but consultation with SSC is not mentioned.
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.
Act 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. 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. State Govt. has power to give overriding directions which will be binding on the Board
  5. Board not given power to act as a forum for appeals or review functioning of the State Police.
Complaint Authorities set up at State/District levels.
comments
  1. Composition of Authorities not in keeping with Court’s directions.
  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”
  3. There are provisions which could unduly penalize complainants.
Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014 promulgated on 25.06.2014
10 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”.
  4. No provision for preparation of an annual report.
Section 6 of Act deals with selection/tenure of DGP,.
comments
  1. UPSC not given role in preparation of panel.
  2. DGP given tenure of one year only subject to superannuation.
  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.
  4. Not authorized to review functioning of State Police.
State level Accountability Commission set up.
comments
  1. Chairperson of State Commission will be a retired officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the State Government. This is contrary to Court’s directive.
  2. Directions are binding.
  3. No mention of District level Authority.
Meghalaya Police Act, 2010 notified on 7.2.2011.
11 Mizoram Constituted
Comments
  1. Composition is not as per Court’s directive. No judicial element.\
  2. No stipulation that its recommendations are binding.
  3. No provision for annual report.
Notification issued (DGP is appointed by MHA)
comments
  1. SSC (and not UPSC) is the empaneling authority.
  2. Tenure is subject to superannuation.
  3. No mention of requirement to consult SSC before removing DGP prematurely.
Notification issued Exemption sought in view of thin population of State Constituted
comments
  1. Mandate has been limited.
  2. No mention of Board functioning as forum of appeal.
  3. No authorized to review functioning of State Police.
State level Authority provided for under Section 101, District Level under Section 114.
comments
  1. State Level Authority can be headed by a retired Judge or a retired IPS officer. This is against Court’s directive.
  2. District Level Authorities not given power to enquire into complaints but only to monitor departmental proceedings. .
  3. Directions are binding.
Mizoram Police Act, 2011 passed on Dec. 19, 2011.
12 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. No mention of selection through empanelment by UPSC.
  2. DGP is selected directly by state government. Zone of consideration is not limited to three senior-most officers.
  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 assured only 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 is 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.
  3. Not authorized to review functioning of state police.
Created [Section 54] for both the State and District levels PCAs,
comments
  1. Their composition /functions are not specified.
  2. Chairperson is a retired civil servant, which is contrary to Court’s directive.
  3. Recommendations are not binding.
Punjab Police Act, 2007 in force from 20.02.08. Amendments made in 2014.
13 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 in the SC directive.
  3. An officer not below the rank of ADGP is made Member-Secretary of the Commission, instead of DGP.
  4. Recommendations are not binding..
Provides for [Section 13].
comments
  1. The Act does not mention 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 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, they are authorized only to make recommendations.
Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, Notified on 01.11.07
14 Sikkim Provides for constitution [Sections 39, 40 & 41]
comments
  1. In its composition, the official members constitute a large majority.
  2. No stipulation that recommendations will be binding.
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. Tenure of DGP is subject to superannuation.
  3. 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.
Section 11 of Act provides two year tenure to SP and SHO.
Notification dated 28.12.2006 however provides two year tenure to IG, 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. Transfers / postings of officers above the rank of DySP are kept out of the Committee’s purview.
  2. Board is not authorized to review functioning of state police.
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 will be binding on the administrative authority concerned.
Sikkim Police Act legislated – Notified on 30.07.08
15 Tamil Nadu SSC constituted, vide sections 5 & 6 of the Act.
comments
  1. Composition does not follow any of three models prescribed by Court.
  2. SSC has Chairpersons of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, State Human Rights Commission, State Women’s Commission, State Minorities Commission as members. They are all ex-officio members, are government nominees and therefore cannot be considered independent.
  3. Not clear that recommendations of the Commission will be binding.
DGP will be selected from panel prepared by UPSC and will have tenure of two years.
comments
  1. Act provides for panel of five officers. Court wanted UPSC to prepare panel of three officers only. Intention appears to be to give more latitude to CM.
  2. Grounds for premature removal include “other administrative grounds to be recorded in writing.” This could be misused.
Officers incharge police station, SP i/c District and Commissioner of Police will have tenure of two years.
comments
  1. Act is silent about tenure of DIG i/c Range or IG i/c Zone.
  2. Officers may be transferred on “administrative grounds to be recorded in writing.”
Section 9 of Act provides for separation in every police station except those specifically designated as Crime Police Stations. Act provides for several tiers of Establishment Boards – one for officers of the rank of SP and above upto the rank of IG only, another for officers of and below the rank of Addl. SP and Boards at Zonal, Range, City and District Levels.
comments
  1. DGP alone (and not PEB) will send proposals for officers of and above the rank of IGP.
  2. Not clear that recommendations of PEB will be given “due weight” by the Government, which should normally accept them.
  3. Composition and functions of Police Establishment Committees at Zonal, Range, City and District levels have not been clarified.
  4. Board has not been given power to generally review the functioning of police in the State.
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 Collector / 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.
  3. Complaints have to be received as a “sworn affidavit duly attested by a notary public”. This places unnecessary burden on complainants.
Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act 2013 promulgated on Sept. 11, 2013.
16 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 or any other body in empanelment of officers.
  2. Tenure is subject to superannuation.
  3. DGP can be removed without consultation with the State Police Board.
  4. Grounds of “inefficiency or negligence prima-facie established after a preliminary enquiry” not found in the SC directive.
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 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. Recommendations of the Commission are binding.
Tripura Police Act, 2007 is in force from 07.04.2009.
17 Uttarakhand Provides for a State Police Board [Section 29].
comments
  1. There is no judicial element in the composition of the Board.
  2. The number of official functionaries in the Board outweighs the number of non-official / independent members.
  3. The Act stipulates that the Board’s functions are simply to provide ‘suggestions’ and ‘advice’ to the State Government.
  4. 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 two year tenure of DGP 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.
State Police Complaints Authority headed by a retired Judge of Supreme Court/High Court set up. It will comprise Chairperson and maximum four other members.
comments
  1. District Complaint Authorities headed a retired District Judge constituted for Kumaon and Garhwal regions. These will comprise Chairperson and maximum four other members.
  2. Recommendations of State/District Authority regarding disciplinary action against police personnel shall be binding.
  3. District Authorities have been constituted for regions and not districts.
Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 in force from 04.01.08.
Uttarakhand Police (Amendment) Act, 2018 passed on March 24, 2018.