Assam Police Act: Concepts, Content, and Intent

Official
website of Govt. of Assam – Public Information Officers (Union Govt.)
– Public Information Officers (Indian Parliament) – Central Information
Commission (CIC) – Directorate of Information & Public Relations
Govt. Of Assam

RTI
Acts & Rules – RTI User’s Guide
– RTI Acts 2005, FAQ (in Assamese)
– RTI Acts 2005, Main Characteristics
(in Assamese)

Assam Police Act: Concept, Content and Intent

By: R.S. Mooshahary

THE SUPREME COURT in its judgment in Prakash Singh & Others vs Union of India, on September 26, 2006, mandated the governments
at the Centre and the States to carry out police reforms through legislation by incorporating certain specific provisions
therein. In compliance with that, the Assam Government introduced the Assam Police Bill, 2007 on August 6 this year in the State
Assembly, which passed it on August 9, rejecting the demand by the Opposition to refer it to the Select Committee for detailed
examination. There was urgency in passing the bill because without it the appointment of the Director General of Police of the
State, which fell vacant eight months ago, and other important matters of police administration could not be resolved. The
Supreme Court had to intervene as the Executive failed to act despite the recommendations of innumerable commissions and
committees constituted by various governments on the subject of police reforms.

The Assam Police Act 2007 provides for setting up of the State Security Commission within six months with the Chief Minister
or the Home minister as Chairperson and seven other members, one of whom will be a retired High Court Judge. The Supreme Court
wanted this commission to �ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure� so that the
State police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country.� However, this commission is
unlikely to fulfil this objective and it may just become an advisory body, as its functions are limited under the new Act to
framing broad policy guidelines, identifying performance indicators and preparing a panel of three senior-most police officers
for appointment as the DGP. Likewise, the minimum tenure of DGP, District Superintendent of Police and the Officer-in-Charge
of a police station will be one year, though the Supreme Court�s original direction was for two years for all the officers
assigned to operational functions.

The administration of the district police will continue to be under the general control and direction of the District
Magistrate under section 14(1), corresponding to Section 4 of 1861 Act. It is in conflict with section 42, which empowers the
DGP and the District Superintendent of Police to administer the police in their respective jurisdictions without such a rider.
There is an additional clause, 14(2), to prohibit the DM from interfering in the internal administration of discipline and
morale of police, which is ipso facto redundant because of the wording of Section 14(1). Textually verbose and functionally
otiose in the new-age policing dynamics, Section 14 is illustrative of the attitudinal logjam that afflicts bureaucrats in a
time of change.

It is an empirical fact that the Superintendent of Police plans, controls, directs and executes the police functions with the
DM rarely dissenting. The general control and direction by the DM distorts this reality and it implicitly conveys the mistrust
in a system functioning for long 150 years, which is constantly evolving with vastly improved qualities of its officers. It
leads to ego-related stand-offs and creates hierarchical aberrations in a rank-conscious organization, as the DM is professionally
extraneous. In fact, the entire approach to police reform, which the Supreme Court considered, was to give the police the trust and
motivation to behave responsibly by enabling them to manage their own functions � in autonomy and self-restraint. The new Act could
have done that by simply making a departure from the old one. Having established the primacy of DM as the coordinator of district
administration under Section 15, which is a welcome incorporation, it is illogical to re-package Section 4 of the old Act.

The Act stipulates urban police dispensation outside the control of the District Magistrate in cities with more than 10 lakh population.
This system is as old as the 1861 Act and has been working well in the cities. This clearly shows that police is able to regulate its
own code of conduct and they behave better given the trust and responsibility within their own control mechanism even under pressing
situations. Over a century ago when this system was initially introduced in the cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras (incidentally,
the names of all three cities have changed but not the system) they were less populous than many of our district headquarters now. The
problems that the police faced then were much less complicated than what they face in the districts now. Even at that time, they
conceived this urban policing system and administered it giving full responsibility to the police. Now the district towns are populous
and many areas semi-urban with diverse problems, and the policing system needs to encompass them.

The Police Establishment Board to be constituted under Section 44 will generate confidence among the personnel as it will
protect them from illegal orders and recognize merit in their placement. The Police Accountability Commission and the District
Police Accountability Authorities will provide the people institutional support to get justice against police excesses. It is
however felt that the Commission would not be effective, as it has no power to impose penalty to compensate the victims. Accountability
in administration is an absolute requirement for efficiency and containing corruption, and every department of the government must
statutorily enforce it.

Senior officers of the rank of IGP will be in-charge of zones, which will comprise one or more of the existing police ranges.
The functioning of the specialized units like the Intelligence and the CID will receive special impetus under the Act. The
investigation function will be strengthened by creating Special Crime Investigation Units, separate from the law-and-order
function. In order to enhance the performance potential, a full-fledged police academy is to be established under Section 19.
The Act lists out in Chapter IV the roles, functions and duties of police including its social responsibilities during
emergencies. Chapter V specifies policing in the context of public order and internal security challenges.

Police dereliction of duty and unauthorized exercise of power to arrest, search and seize are punishable offences. Section
100 lists offences by public by way of causing annoyance, inconvenience or danger on any road, street, thoroughfare or any
open places, which are punishable. This is an important provision to curb the growing tendency of the people to use roads and
public places for private use, leave their cattle to stray or ditches and holes uncovered. There is thus no need to make its
enforcement conditional on a separate notification by the State or a local government, as the society will wholeheartedly
welcome it. The Act is silent on strengthening the vigilance and anti-corruption wing, which is essentially an investigation
function similar to that of the CID. Let us hope that the government will come out with a separate enactment on this important
aspect of police function to establish probity in public service. This is but a short take of the new Act, which has 117 sections
divided into various sub-sections with no list of contents.

The core content of police role is protection of life, liberty, property and prevention and detection of crimes. Its accountability
is to law and not to authorities wielding power and it must function with the face of social guardians at all time. Mere change of
the Act will not transform their state of mind. They need better training, motivation and work environment to change and enhance
their efficiency quotient and the government must provide them these performance facilitators. They also need examples of positive
attributes of equity, impartiality, honesty and sincerity from the leaders in the discharge of public duties, which they can emulate.
Then only will real transformation happen and the society will get the police it needs.

(The writer is Chief Information Commissioner, Asom)