INTRODUCTION

The term police has been derived from the latin word politia which means the condition of a
Polis or State. According to Oxford dictionary, the term police means a system of regulation for
the preservation of order and enforcement of law; the internal government of State.

The term broadly refers to purposeful maintenance of public order and protection of persons and
property, from the hazards of public accidents and the commission of unlawful acts. It refers to
civil functionaries charged with maintaining public order and safety and enforcing the law
including the prevention and detection of crime1

The duties of the police are specified in the Police Act of 1861, a remnant of colonial rule that
was designed to be highly militaristic and authoritarian. Section 20 specifies that the police do
not have unfettered discretion to commit any act, but only those acts that have been sanctioned
by law (the ultra-vires principle). Section 23 specifies the general duties of the police officer.2
Save for a brief section on neglect of duty, however, the Act does not discuss instances of civilian
and political control over police when the latter has exceeded or abused its power.3
As mentioned above, the police are governed by the state, so most of the regulations will be
found in state laws rather than central government laws.
For example, the Delhi Police Act of 1978 specifies, in section 19, the powers held by the
commissioner of police. The Commissioner may make regulations regarding, among others, the
place of residence of members of the police force and regulations for the purpose of rendering

1 Sonia Saini, Model Police Act 2006- an Analysis, available at ssglawfirm.in, accessed on 28/03/2015.

2 It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants
lawfully issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the
public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offences to
justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend, and for whose
apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police-officer, for any of the
purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect, any drinking-shop, gaming-
house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.

3 Section 29 of the Police Act 1861

the police efficient and preventing abuse or neglect of their duties. 4 The Act further provides for
punishments in cases of misconduct.5
While the various police acts clearly articulate the powers the police forces enjoy, they are less
clear, indeed silent, on the processes that can be taken against police misconduct by the
aggrieved citizenry. True, the police acts prescribe actions that can be taken against police
officers in cases of dereliction of duty, but such action is usually brought by the officers
superior, who also later assigns the punishment, if any. The various police acts do not set up any
mechanism for effective political and civic control of the police force. There is no establishment
of an institution whose sole purpose and authority is to receive complaints from the public,
investigate the complaints, and bring the proper action after the investigation has ended. While
the police have internal mechanisms to deal with disciplinary infractions and the like, there is no
clearly established external mechanism that makes them accountable to the public which they are
in charge of protecting.

The need for police reforms in India is long recognized. There has been more than three decades
of discussion by government created committees and commissions. Way back in 1979 the
National Police Commission (NPC) was set up to report on policing and give recommendations
for reform. The Commission produced eight reports, dozens of topic specific recommendations
and also a Model Police Act. No recommendation was adopted by any government. This
persuaded two former Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct governments to implement the
NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 year long battle in Court, the Court set up the
Ribeiro Committee in 1998 followed by the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and eventually
the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC or Soli Sorabjee Committee) that drafted a new
model police bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act in 2006. Meanwhile very little was ever
done on the ground to improve policing or implement the recommendations put forth by any of
these committees or commissions.

4 Section 19(c) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978

5 section 19(h) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978

A decade later in 2006 the Court delivered its verdict. In what is popularly referred to as the
Prakash Singh case6 the Supreme Court ordered that reform must take place. States and union
territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick start reform.

THE SEVEN DIRECTIVES IN A NUTSHELL

Directive One
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:
(i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the
police
(ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and
(iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police
Directive Two
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a minimum
tenure of two years
Directive Three
Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-
charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a
minimum tenure of two years
Directive Four
Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police
Directive Five
Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other
service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police
Directive Six
Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints
against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of
serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at

6 Prakash Singh and Ors v Union of India and Ors1 ;(2006) 8 SCC 1
 district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct
Directive Seven
Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection
and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of
two years
These directives pulled together the various strands of improvement generated since 1979. The
Court required immediate implementation of its orders either through executive orders or new
police legislation. Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all states and union
territories. However, in 2008 it set up a three member Monitoring Committee with a two year
mandate to examine compliance state by state and report back to it periodically.

Comparison of the Police Act 1861 and Model Police Act, 1861 :
1) On the basis of scope of the Acts: The Police Act 1861 is not the sole or only law in relation
to police functions. The maintenance of public order and the criminal justice system are based on
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act as well as a
large number of special legislations including special laws including Prevention of Terrorism Act
(POTA, now repealed ) or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (in which many of the provisions
of repealed POTA have been incorporated ) or Control of Organized Crimes Act (COCA) as in
Maharashtra or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, apart
from the provisions of the Indian Constitution itself .In addition to the laws, there are Police
Regulations (e.g. PRB in West Bengal) and Police Manuals (e.g. Tamil Nadu) in every state
laying down clear guidelines and instructions in regard to the exercise of police powers and
duties.
The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration. It is self sufficient
in nature and does not draw any support from the other substantive law for the purpose of
administration. It is an act in a right direction which can be a good alternative to the archaic old
act
2) The preamble of the Act: The preamble of the Police Act of 1861 states that enacted to
reorganize the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection
 of crime.7 The preamble of the act makes it clear that the role of the police is just as an
instrument for prevention and detection of crimes. The police plays no role in preserving the
rights of the people and responding to the democratic aspiration of the people. The role of the
police is just confined to the law enforcement function.
The preamble of the Model Act is wider in its ambit and its states:
WHEREAS respect for and promotion of the human rights of the people, and protection of
their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, is the primary concern of the Rule
of Law8;
AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide impartial and
efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests of vulnerable sections of society including
the minorities, and responding to the democratic aspirations of citizens;
AND WHEREAS such functioning of the police personnel needs to be professionally organised,
service oriented, free from extraneous influences and accountable to law;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to redefine the role of the police, its duties and
responsibilities, by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of
State, the imperatives of good governance, and respect for human rights;
AND WHEREAS it is essential to appropriately empower the police to enable it to function as an
efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, since it is necessary for this purpose to enact a new law relating to the
establishment and management of the Police Service, it is hereby enacted as follows:

3) Control and Supervision of Police :

Under the Police Act 1861, the superintendence of the police vests in the State Government and
it is exercised by the State Government to which the Police Officer is Subordinate 9. The
admistration of the Police according to the act vests in the Inspector-General of Police and in

7 Preamble, Police Act 1861

8 Preamble. Model Police Act, 2006.

9 Section 3, Police Act, 1861

such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspector-General, as the State Government
considers fit.10
Whereas in the Model Police Act, Superintendence of the police vests in the relevant state
government.11The state government is responsible for ensuring an efficient, effective, responsive
and accountable police service.12 Superintendence is limited to promoting professional
efficiency of the police and ensuring that [police] performance is at all times in accordance
with law. Administration of the police vests in the Director General of Police. 13 The government
cannot interfere with the Director Generals powers except in accordance with prescribed rules or
in exceptional circumstances (where reasons should be recorded). The powers of administration
will include14:
supervising the functioning of the police at all levels;
appointment to subordinate ranks (all officers below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police);
deployment;
transfers and disciplinary action up to and inclusive of the rank of Inspector of Police; and
advising the government on the placement of officers of and above therank of
Assistant/Deputy Superintendent of Police.
4. Provision for State Police Board
The Police Act 1861 does not provide for the formation of a State Police Board whereas the
Model Police Act, 2006 states a state Police Board15 would be constituted
The State Police Board according to the act shall comprise of16:

10 Section 4, Police Act, 1861

11 Section 39, Model Police Act, 2006

12 Section 39(2), Model Police Act, 2006.

13 Section 51, Model Police Act,2006.

14 Section 51(3), Model Police Act,2006

15 Section 41, Model Police Act,2006

16 Section 42, Model Police Act,2006

a) the Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly;
b) a retired High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court;
c) the Chief Secretary;
d) the Home Secretary;
e) the Director General of Police as the member secretary; and
f) five non-political persons of proven integrity and competence from the fields of academia, law,
public administration, media or nongovernment

The State Police Board would perform the following functions according to the act17:
a) frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, effective, responsive and accountable
policing;
b) select and prepare a panel (on the basis of seniority and merit see below)of three senior most
police officers for promotion to the post of Director General of Police;
c) identify performance indicators for police evaluation; and
d) Conduct organizational performance evaluation.

5. Provisions regarding Director General of Police:

The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the appointment of Director
General of Police but under the Model Police Act, the police is under administration of Director
General of Police so provision has been incorporated for appointment of Director General of
Police who shall be appointed by State Government from amongst three senior-most officers of
the state Police Service, empanelled for the rank18.
6. Security of Tenure:
The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the security of tenure. It provides
that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector-General, Assistant Inspector-General and District
Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss , suspend or reduce any police officer of

17 Section 48, Model Police Act,2006.

18 Section 6, Model Police Act, 2006

 subordinate ranks whom they think remiss or negligent in the discharge of duty , or unfit for the
same19.
On the other hand the Model Police Act, 2006 provides that all officers must be provided with a
minimum of two years tenure in a particular post to ensure they are free to complete their tasks
free of illegitimate interference20. An authority mandated to transfer officers of a particular rank
(or to a particular post) may transfer officers before the passing of two years, but only if reasons
are recorded.
7. Transfers:
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision regarding transfers. The police being
under the State Government is always subject to frequent transfers on the wishes of the State
Government.
Under the Model Police Act, 2006 the Power to transfer is given to different authorities
depending on rank or post. Transfer is prohibited by any authority other than the one specified in
law. Under the Act the government shall post officers to all positions in the ranks of Assistant/
Deputy Superintendent and above. In each case (except for the Director General of Police), the
government should be guided by the recommendations of the Police Establishment Committee 21,
made up of the Director General of Police and four other senior-most officers. The government
must accept these recommendations or record its reasons for disagreement in writing.
The Director General decides all initial transfers of officers who are Sub-Inspectors or Inspectors
to a police range as well as transfers of these officers from one range to another, after considering
the recommendations of the Establishment Committee. The Range Deputy Inspector General
decides inter-district transfers of Inspectors and more junior officers within a range on the
recommendations of a committee made up of all the District Superintendents of Police in the
range22. The District Superintendent of Police decides the transfer of Inspectors and more junior

19 Section 7, Police Act 1861

20 Section 13, Model Police Act,2006

21 Section 54(4) of the Draft Police Act, 2006

22Section 53(5) of the Draft Police Act, 2006

 officers within a district on the recommendations of a committee made up of all the Additional,
Deputy and Assistant Superintendents of Police in a district.
8. Promotion :
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision for promotion.
The Draft Police Act, 2006 lays down specific provision regarding promotion which has to be
evaluated by a qualifying examination and a performance evaluation 23. The act further lays down
that the union government must frame the evaluation criteria for officers of the Indian Police
Service24. The Director General of Police shall frame the evaluation criteria for the remaining
officers in the relevant state (with the approval of the state government) 25. The Model Act also
mandates the state Police Recruitment Board to set out the merit and seniority criteria for
promotion for different ranks26.
9. Appointment
The Police Act, 1861 states that appointment of the police officers is subject to article 311 of the
constitution and such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under the act27.
According to the Model Police Act Recruitment 28 to the police organization shall continue to be
at the following three levels:
a) to the Indian Police Service through the Union Public Service Commission29;
b) to Deputy Superintendent of Police through the State Public Service Commission30;

23 Section 26(2) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.

24 Section 54(Proviso) of the Model Police Act,2006.

25 Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006

26 Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006

27 Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861

28 Section 4 of the Model Police Act, 2006

29 Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006

30 Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006

c) and direct recruitment to non-gazetted ranks through a state-level Police Recruitment Board.
This Board created under the Model Act shall ensure that the process of recruitment is
transparent, and adopts codified and scientific systems and procedures. The New act proposes the
position of constable to be replaced by civil police. The direct recruitment to Group C posts in
the Civil Police, other than in the ministerial and technical cadres, after the coming into force of
this Act, shall be made only to the ranks of Civil Police Officer Grade II and Sub-Inspector 31.
The age group for recruitment as stipendiary Civil Police Officer Grade II cadet shall be 18 to 23
years. The minimum educational qualification shall be 10+2 Higher Secondary or equivalent
examination32.
The act further provides that in case of armed police direct recruitment to the armed police shall
be limited to Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commandant; Reserve Sub-Inspector;
and Constable33. The minimum educational qualification for a Constable in the armed police
shall be matriculation, while a reserve Sub-Inspector must be a graduate. A Constable shall be
between 18-21 years of age and a reserve Sub-Inspector between 21-24 years34.

10. Strengthening police investigations

Under the Police Act, 1861 the preamble clearly states that whereas it is expedient to reorganize
the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime 35.
The Police Investigation conducted are governed by the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure
and there are no specific section in the Police Act, 1861 which provides for it.
On the other hand Model Police Act, 2006 provides that Investigation and law and order
functions shall be separated (a model is proposed to ensure this happens without affecting the

31 Section 24(2) of the Model Police Act,2006

32 Section 25(1) of the Model Police Act,2006

33 Section 35(1) of the Model Police Act, 2006

34 Section 35(2) of the Model Police Act,2006

35 Preamble, Police Act 1861

chain of command). Specialised crime investigation wings and departments must be equipped
with adequate facilities, scientific aids, and qualified and trained human resources36.
At the state level, a Criminal Investigation Department 37 must be created to investigate inter-state
and inter-district crimes, as well as other serious crimes either notified by the state government
or allocated to the Department by the Director General of Police. A Deputy Inspector General of
Police shall head the Department38. The Department must have specialized units for investigating
cyber crime, organized crime, homicide, economic offences and any other offences that require
specific investigative skills (and are specifically notified by the state government).
The act further provides that a Special Crime Investigation Unit shall be created at the police
station level in all urban and crime-prone rural areas 39. A Sub-Inspector or a more senior officer
shall head the Unit40. The Unit must investigate offences such as murder, kidnapping, rape,
dacoity, robbery, dowry-related offences, serious cases of cheating, misappropriation and other
economic offences that are notified by the Director General of Police or allocated by the District
Superintendent of Police41. All other crimes shall continue to be investigated by other officers in
the police station42. Officers in the Special Crime Investigation Unit and in the Criminal
Investigation Department at the state level shall have a minimum tenure of three years (with a
maximum tenure of five years)43. Officers posted to the Special Crime Investigation Unit cannot

36 Section 99(b) of the Model Police Act, 2006

37 Section 16 of the Model Police Act, 2006

38 Section 16(2) of the Model Police Act 2006

39 Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006.

40 Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006

41 Section 125(1) of Model Police Act, 2006.

42 Section 125(2)of Model Police Act, 2006

43 Section 124of Model Police Act, 2006.

 be given any other duty, except under exceptional circumstances and with the written permission
of the Director General of Police.
The act also considers that despite the separation of investigation and law and order functions,
the Station House Officer shall continue to supervise all officers in the Police Station including
those posted in the Special Crime Investigation Unit. In addition to the Station House Officer, an
Additional Superintendent of Police at the district level must supervise these investigations as
well. The Additional Superintendent shall report to the District Superintendent.
11. Accountability for performance
The Police Act, 1861 totally fails on the grounds of any accountability of the acts of the Police.
The police under this act hold no accountability to anyone.
Under the Model Police Acts the Police organization has been made more accountable to the
public by incorporating certain specific provisions in this regard. The acts incorporates that the
The State Government shall in consultation with the State Police Board established under draw
up a Strategic Policing Plan for a five-year period duly identifying the objectives of policing
sought to be achieved during the period and setting out an action plan for their implementation 44;.
The plans shall be prepared after receiving inputs on the policing needs of the districts from the
District Superintendents of Police who, in turn, shall formulate the same in consultation with the
community45.
The State Police Board shall regularly evaluate the performance of the police organisation in
each district, as well as the state police as a whole. When conducting an evaluation, the Board
shall be assisted by an Inspectorate of Performance. This Inspectorate shall be headed by a
retired Director General of Police and made up of serving or retired police officers, social
scientists, police academics and crime statisticians. The members of the Inspectorate shall be
appointed by the government from a list of candidates prepared by the State Police Board.46
12. Accountability for Police Misconduct

44 Section 40 (1)(a) of Model Police Act, 2006

45 Section 40(2) of Model Police Act 2006.

46 Section 181 of Model Police Act, 2006

Police misconduct and the failure to effectively respond to situations are undermining public
confidence in the system. These are issues whose gravity is not being addressed in any really
serious way. The widespread belief that the police functions with impunity and officers are
rarely held to account for their acts of omission and commission is breaking the faith of the
public in the police. Further, Sections 132 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
prevent courts from taking cases of alleged offences in the discharge of official duty, for various
categories of public servants including police officers, without the prior sanction of the
government. This sanction is sparingly granted which explains the overwhelming reliance on
internal disciplinary mechanisms which unfortunately do not inspire public trust and confidence.
General public distrust stems from a variety of beliefs such as an innate desire for the department
to protect its image; some questionable practices finding widespread acceptance within the
police; inquiry officers not wishing to be seen as turncoats and inimical to the feeling of
camaraderie; the feeling that disciplinary action will lower the morale of the force and blunt its
edge in dealing with special situations like militancy or organised crime; and the likelihood of
the person under scrutiny being personally known to inquiry officer/s.
The Police Act 1861 is silent on Police Misconduct but the Model Police Act has specific
provisions devoted to it. Under the Model Police Act, 2006, the state government must set up a
Police Accountability Commission47 at the state level to inquire into extremely serious
misconduct48, which is defined as: death in police custody; grievous hurt; rape or attempted
rape; and illegal arrest or detention. Inquiries by the Commission shall replace internal inquiries,
and its findings shall be binding on the police department and the government. The only
discretion or power that the police or government shall have in such cases is to award
punishment in cases where the Commission finds an officer guilty.
The police must be under a duty to forward all cases of serious misconduct to the Commission
for inquiry. Except in cases of serious misconduct, the police department shall retain the the
police department shall retain the power to internally inquire and discipline officers.

47 Section 159 of Model Police Act, 2006.

48 Section 167 of Model Police Act, 2006.

 The Commission shall be made up of five members that have a credible record of Integrity and
commitment to human rights. Of the five members, at least one must be a woman, and not more
than one should be a police officer. The members must include49:
a. retired High Court judge as the Chairperson;
b. a retired police officer of the rank of Director General of Police from a different state cadre;
c. a person with a minimum of ten years experience either as a judicial officer, public prosecutor,
practising advocate, or a professor of law;
d. a person of repute and standing from civil society; and
e. a retired officer with experience in public administration from another state.
The state government must also put in place District Accountability Authorities50 in each police
district or group of districts in a police range to monitor internal inquiries into cases of police
misconduct that include any wilful breach or neglect by a police officer of any law, rule, or
regulation that adversely affects the rights of an individual.
To increase the accountability under the Act, The police are under a duty to send quarterly
reports51 detailing the complaints received against police officers and the action taken by the
police organization (where the case involves a member of the public). If a complaint relates to a
Deputy Superintendent (or more senior officer), the reports shall be sent to the Commission at
the state level; for other officers, the reports must be sent to the Authority at the district level. If
the Commission or Authority believes that there has been a delay dealing with a complaint, it
may direct the police to expedite the inquiry. If a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of
an inquiry and believesthat the principles of natural justice have not been followed, the
Commission or Authority may direct the police to institute a fresh inquiry by a different officer.
13. Police Offences :
The list of offences committed by a police officer under the Police Act, 1861 includes wilful
breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order; withdrawal from duties of the office
or being absent without permission or reasonable cause; engaging without authority in any

49 Section 160 of Model Police Act, 2006.

50 Section 173 of Model Police Act, 2006

51 Section 167(3) Model Police Act, 2006.

 employment other than police duty; cowardice; and causing any unwarrantable violence to any
person in her/his custody. The penalty for these offences is fine up to three months pay or
imprisonment up to three months or both52.
Under the Model Police Act, 2006, Identified police misconduct is considered a criminal offence.
Identified misconduct includes illegal arrest, detention, search and seizure, failure to present an
arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, subjecting a person to torture, inhuman or
unlawful violence, gross misbehaviour and making threats or promises unwarranted by law53.
Non-registration of a First Information Report shall also be an offence punishable with three
months imprisonment or fine (or both)
Conclusion
The Police Act, 1861 needs to be replaced with legislation that reflects the democratic nature of
Indias polity and the changing times. The Act is weak in almost all the parameters that must
govern democratic police legislation. The Act has made it easier for others to abuse and misuse
the police organization. It has been possible for people in positions of power to do so because of
the following reasons:
i) The Act gives the government, the authority to exercise superintendence over the police,
without defining the word Superintendence or prescribing some guidelines to ensure that the use of
power will be legitimate
ii) The Act does not establish any institutional and other arrangements to insulate the police from
undesirable and illegitimate outside control, pressures and influences
iii) The Act does not recognize the responsibility of the government to establish an efficient and
effective police force.
iv) The Act does not make it necessary to outline objectives and performance standards, nor does it
set up independent mechanisms to monitor and inspect police performance.
v) The Act is antiquated in its charter of duties, which is narrow and limited.
vi) The Act does not mandate the police to function as a professional and service oriented
organization

52 Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861.

53 Section 199 and Section 200 of Model Police Act, 2006.

vii) The Act is not in consonance with the requirements of democratic policing. These requirements
insist on the existence of a police force that:
(a) is subject to the rule of law, rather than the whims of a powerful leader or party;
b) can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and controlled circumstances; and
(c) is publicly accountable.
Criticism of the Model Police Act, 2006:

1. The first concerned expressed is that some of the words and phrases used in the Model Act
have been defined very broadly in Chapter I of the Act. For instance, words and phrases like
terrorist activity, militant activities, insurgency and organized crime have been used throughout
the Model Act with concomitant police duties as well as powers of the state to declare areas as
Special Security Zones. The definition of these terms is not sufficiently precise. Instead,
definitions are inclusive- the terms are defined to include activities. It means that many other
activities that are not specified can fall within the terms of the definition. This has the potential to
impact heavily on the fundamental rights of the community, and broaden the application of the
Act well beyond what was anticipated by the Committee.
2. Secondly, grave reservations are expressed regarding the inclusion of Section 22 in Chapter II
of the Model Act. Section 22 empowers the Superintendent of Police to appoint any able-bodied
and willing person he considers fit to be a Special Police Officer to assist the Police Service. A
Special Police Officer appointed under Section 22 would have the same powers and immunities
as ordinary police officers, but would not have the opportunity to undertake the comprehensive
training a regular officer is required to undergo, in subjects as diverse as the use of fire arms, the
principles of law relating to use of force and the legal rights of the public. Experience in
Punjab,If more police officers are required in a given situation, proper recruitment and
appointment procedures must be followed to induct new officers. An effective police service is a
professional, trained policeservice. This is a minimum standard that must not be breached.
3. Thirdly, the concern expressed is regarding the police presence in rural India which continues
to be minimal. The rural policing system advocated by the Committee in Chapter VII is based on
assistance from local villagers who are appointed as Village Guards and Village Defense Parties.
Their functions broadly include: (a) preventive patrolling; (b) securing and preserving scenes of
crime; (c) remaining alert and sensitive to any information about any suspicious activity. such
information to the police; (d) making arrests and handing arrested people to the police without
delay. It has been observed that these provisions have vast scope for abuse. Questions like, who
are suspicious persons?, and what is suspicious activity? are bound to arise. Authorizing
Village Guards to arrest and hand over a suspect to police is also an issue. Concern has been
expressed regarding the absence of any provision requiring the Village Guards to hand over the
suspect within twenty-four hours of arrest, which is the general standard followed in the Cr.P.C.
It might result in a concentration of power in the hands of the dominant groups within villages
that might be steeped in gender, caste or religious bias. The scope for abuse is vast; especially
given the fact that most villagers would not be aware of the ambit of powers of the Village Guard
and Defense Party or of their rights vis--vis these power structures within the village. Apart
from the grave dangers of abuse of power, lack of appropriate skills, experience and training
would also mean inefficient, ineffective and unresponsive policing in rural areas. Doubts have
been raised about the skills of a villager while preserving and securing crime scenes or in
preventive patrolling. It has also been observed that there is no excuse for the failure to provide
regular police cover to villages where the majority of Indian population resides.
Though the Model Police Act, 2006 is not free from criticisms but it is a better substitute to the
old and outdated Police Act, 1861