Police Force Has Gone Through Phase Of Moral & Professional Deterioration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Suggests Police Reforms
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sushil Kukreja, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has suggested certain police reforms, saying that the police force has gone through a phase of moral and professional deterioration.
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by Ravina, raising certain serious questions relating to the administration of criminal justice system in the State with reference to criminals and the role and efficiency of police force in combating this problem.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked, “The police force is one of the most important forces with great potential, easily approachable to the people facing criminal wrong, law and order problem and the most visible component of the criminal justice system. Like other departments, there has been a general fall and deterioration in the standard of functioning of the police force also. … With time, it has been seen that the police force, not as a whole, but in small groups, has gone through a phase of moral and professional deterioration.”
The Bench added that there are black sheeps also in the police force and they reflect upon the whole department, which has led to growing concern and a number of attempts have been made to mend this situation.
Advocate Manik Sethi (Proxy Counsel) appeared for the Petitioner while AG Anup Rattan appeared for the Respondent-State.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted, “… the past few years have been particularly eventful with a number of positive developments having taken place towards a solution of the problem and the State appears to have taken certain radical steps to eradicate the crime.”
The Court further said that the police force faces some real difficulty in combating with criminal activities and, therefore, the police force cannot be blamed entirely for what has been happening in the society.
“The problems of police force have been time and again highlighted by several Law Commissions appointed for making recommendations for police reforms and several recommendations have been suggested and implemented from time to time”, it also observed.
Court’s Suggestions
The Court suggested the following police reforms to be considered by the State –
Police Reforms & Modernization
1. Revision of Sanctioned Strength (2006 Posts Revision): Need to strengthen the police station level policing, with beat system (Sec 67 and 68 HP Police Act 2007) and also to enhance the capabilities of the district police to deal with specialised crime such as NDPS, white collar crime, drugs related gang war, Cybercrime etc.
Key Directives:
a) The directives aimed to ensure that the police could function without political interference.
b) A fixed tenure for the Director General of Police (DGP).
c) Setting up of Police Establishment Boards to handle postings and transfers to prevent political interferences in postings.
d) Ensuring accountability of police officers for their actions.
e) Separation of investigation work from law and order functions.
f) The need for police to be accountable to the law and the people.
2. Posting of Gazetted officers in the office of district SP: In view of the growing requirement of the police, more DSP ranked officers (GOs) are to be posted in the SP office, handling issues such as Narcotics (DSP Narcotics), Crime (DSP Crimes to supervise serious crimes), Traffic (DSP Traffic and control room) and security (DSP Security to handle VVIP Security visits).
3. Guidelines for Posting Officers outside their District: At times officers should be posted outside the districts so as to ensure accountability and fairness and prevent interferences.
4. Posting of cadre officers in cadre posts: IPS cadre posts are to be filled up by IPS officers only.
5. Creation of Highway Patrols and highway beats - Sec 60(1)xi of HP Police Act: The highways need to be regulated, manned and in accident cases, emergency response measures are to be carried out.
6. Strengthening the ERSS mechanism - Emergency Response Support System 112: Police mobility is important to ensure timely response for victims of crime and also to restore faith in the government and the system.
7. Notification under Section 15 BNSS: Some States have made notified certain police officials as special executive magistrates under section 15 BNSS. This is in the spirit of the new BNSS and also in line with the growing requirements of a modern and progressive society.
8. Revision of Police Rules (PPR): Updates should incorporate advancements in technology, legal frameworks and best policing practices.
9. Special Courts to deal with special crimes: With the growing menace of NDPS, it is imperative that Special Courts are created to deal with the drug menace.
10. Improvement of the FSL labs: Mobile FSL labs are required to be established in each district, so as to enable the Forensic expert to reach the scene of crime on time.
11. Requirement of Pilots in each District improvement of the fleet strength in the districts: Each district should have a dedicated pilot vehicle unit for VVIP and VIP movements to reduce additional workload on existing personnel.
12. Police Housing and Infrastructure Maintenance: Dedicated budgets must be allocated for renovations to ensure dignified living conditions for personnel, enhancing their well-being and efficiency.
13. Strengthening Intelligence Gathering: To streamline intelligence operations, responsibilities should be divided between the Crime Investigation Department (CID) and Security Branch.
14. The police officials/officers not to be posted at their sub division(s) except under exceptional circumstances.
15. Maximum tenure of posting should be fixed: The State should ensure that no police official/officer is retained beyond three years at a particular place of posting and those of the officials/officers posted in border areas should be transferred.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the case on June 3, 2025.
Cause Title- Ravina v. State of H.P. (Case Number: Cr.WP No. 12/2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Manik Sethi (Proxy Counsel)
Respondent: AG Anup Rattan, Addl. AGs Ramakant Sharma, Navlesh Verma, Sushant Kaprate, and Dy. AG Raj Negi.
