Prakash Singh Case (2006)
– Police Reforms and Institutional Autonomy
Background of the Case
Prakash Singh, a former Director General of Police (DGP), filed a Public Interest Litigation highlighting the:
- Political misuse of police machinery
- Arbitrary transfers and postings
- Erosion of professionalism and accountability
The Court noted that:
- Despite multiple expert committee reports (National Police Commission, Ribeiro Committee, Padmanabhaiah Committee) → No comprehensive police reform had been implemented.
Core Constitutional Concern
How can policing be reformed to ensure neutrality, professionalism, and accountability, consistent with democratic governance?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court issued seven binding directives under Article 32, to be followed until appropriate legislation was enacted.
The Seven Directives Explained
(i) State Security Commission (SSC)
- To ensure:
- Insulation of police from political pressure
- Broad policy guidelines for policing
- Composition:
- Chief Minister / Home Minister
- Opposition leader
- Independent members
(ii) Selection and Tenure of DGP
- DGP to be selected:
- From a panel of three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC
- Minimum two-year fixed tenure
Purpose:
- Prevent arbitrary appointments and removals
(iii) Minimum Tenure for Operational Officers
- Officers in key operational posts to have → Minimum two-year tenure
Ensures:
- Continuity
- Professional independence
(iv) Separation of Investigation and Law & Order
- Investigation wing to be separated from:
- Law and order wing
- Enables:
- Better quality investigations
- Focused policing
(v) Police Establishment Board (PEB)
- Comprising senior police officers
- To decide → Transfers, Postings, Promotions (up to certain ranks)
Reduces political interference in routine personnel matters.
(vi) Police Complaints Authority (PCA)
- To be established at → State level, District level
- To inquire into complaints of → Custodial death, Abuse of power, Serious misconduct
(vii) National Security Commission
- To be set up at the central level
- To:
- Ensure selection and placement of heads of Central Armed Police Forces
- Ensure minimum tenure
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Recognised police reform as essential for:
- Rule of law
- Protection of fundamental rights
- Strengthened:
- Institutional independence
- Democratic accountability
- Reflected judicial concern over executive dominance
Impact of the Judgement
- Most States → Constituted SSCs and PEBs
- However:
- Bodies often lack binding authority
- Political interference continues, especially in → Transfers, Postings
- High Courts → Have repeatedly directed States to comply with Prakash Singh guidelines
Limitations and Criticism
- Partial and uneven implementation
- Lack of comprehensive Police Acts in many States
- Structural resistance from political executive
Summary
The Prakash Singh Case (2006) laid down seven directives for police reforms to insulate the police from political interference, but their partial implementation has limited their transformative impact.