Current Scenario> Problems in Police Force> Design defects in Indian Police System>

Unwarranted external interference

As mentioned earlier there are a certain scope for external interference in the police force today, this is particular true in the field of crime investigation, promotions and transfers. The following discussion will focus on these problems and the suggested solutions will be presented later in this section.

Unwarranted political interference in crime investigation

In theory, the police force functions independently from the executive and is according to the Indian constitution accountable to the state government. In reality, police personnel are subjected to frequent and arbitrary transfers and they are exposed to unwarranted external pressure. The reasons for this pressure are two fold: corruption and political patronage of criminals.

Financial reasons

The Chief Minster (CM) is dependent on the support of the legislators. This has created a scope for the legislators to pressurise the CM (in exchange for their support) to transfer, promote and appoint certain police officers at various levels. Leading to the transfer of unwanted and inconvenient police officers who can get transferred to a less attractive post or district, while those who are easily influenced can be posted to 'rewarding' or powerful positions. In return for this service these legislators get payments from the involved police officers. This money can be understood to be a return for these legislators, on the massive investments made by them during elections. This is the purely monetary, totally illegitimate, side of political interference. In addition, police officials or politicians may be bribed for suppressing or distorting evidence and to undermine prosecution of a criminal case.

Where does the scope for political interference arise?

In the Indian political system, the voters elect the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and the MLAs vote for their Chief Minister (CM). In theory, the CM and his/her government is accountable to the citizens. But in reality, the CM is accountable primarily to the MLAs because it is their support that keeps him/her in office.

Again, in theory, the government headed by the CM alone decides all appointments, transfers and promotions of police officers in a state. But again reality is different. The MLAs (well aware of the government's dependence on their support for survival) can and actually do influence the appointments, transfers and promotions of individual officers, to their benefit.

Huge amounts of money change hands during this process, where chosen officers are posted in and disfavoured officers are shunted out to less 'rewarding' posts. Hence creating the scope for political interference.

Personal reasons

Over the last thirty years, candidates to the state legislature first took the help from less legitimate  elements to get elected; and now, increasingly, these elements themselves are getting elected. This has led to known criminals being elected to the state legislature. The police personnel  nce again get pressured from the legislators for an investigative officer to neglect or close an  ongoing investigation. The police investigation officers as well as the public prosecutors are under tremendous pressure not to present a strong case in the courts. This is the more dangerous side  of political interference, where rule of law and the existence of democratic institutions are being threatened.

Because of the two reasons stated above, it is common that the Chief of Police is changed to suit the legislators whenever a new government is elected. The changes do not merely affect the top  levels, but can go all the way down to the Station House Officer, to please the new regime.

To  survive in such a system, police personnel feel compelled to surrender to political influence in  their work. This in turn gravely affects the police work, and specifically the criminal investigations. A police investigator, who is one day leading an investigation, can find him/herself transferred the next day to conduct traffic, if he or she resists the pressure of a local MLA.

Appointments, transfers and promotions

In the present police force, appointments, transfers and promotion are mostly based on subjective opinions. Promotion to higher positions directly involves the executive, while transfers and postings are vested in the hands of higher ranked police officer and applied to all levels. Even here the political executive has an important say. A new government usually appoints, transfers and promotes policemen they know are loyal to them.

The same applies to the appointments of  prosecutors. In theory, the District Magistrate shall prepare a panel of names of persons that are fit to be prosecutors for the district. The list shall be put forward by the Magistrate and a Judge shall appoint who he or she seems to be fit. In practice, it is different. It happens that the state government first recommends names to the Magistrate, which he puts on the panel and hands it back. The listing of the names is based on personal loyalties and political affiliations, rather than on merits and skills.

The result of this is a police force and a prosecution system that rather serve the politicians than the public. Hence the police force cannot function independently under this system.