Modernisation of Police Forces

Constitution

Modernisation of Police Forces

Vinayak Krishnan - October 3, 2017 Comments

In India, police and law and order come under the purview of state governments.[1] Accordingly, each state has its own police force for maintaining law and order and investigating crimes. However, due to financial and other constraints, states have critical gaps in their policing infrastructure.² Figure 1 shows the expenditure by states on police, as a percentage of their total budget. In 2015-16, Manipur spent the highest proportion of its state budget on police, followed by Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.

Figure 1: Police Expenditure as a proportion of total state budget

Fig 1

Note: Figure does not include data for union territories.
Sources: Data on Police Organisations, Bureau of Police Research and Development, 2016; PRS.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has been supplementing resources of states under the Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF) scheme.[2] The Union Cabinet last week approved the implementation of an umbrella scheme of MPF and has allocated funding of Rs 25,060 crore for the 2017-18 to 2019-20 period.[3] In light of this decision, we present the key features of the scheme and examine other issues related to the police forces.

Modernisation of Police Forces scheme

The MPF scheme was initiated in 1969-70 and has undergone several revisions over the years.² It was allocated Rs 11,946 crore for the period between 2012-13 to 2016-17, which has now been doubled after last week’s Cabinet approval.[4] Funds from the MPF scheme are typically used for improving police infrastructure through construction of police stations and provision of modern weaponry, surveillance and communication equipment. Upgradation of training infrastructure, police housing and computerisation are also important objectives funded through the scheme.

Following the recommendations of the Fourteenth Finance Commission, to increase the share of central taxes to states, it was decided that the MPF scheme would be delinked from central funding from 2015-16 onwards.[5] States were expected to finance the scheme using their own resources. However, of the recent allocation made by the Cabinet, Rs 18,636 crore will come from the central government and Rs 6,424 crore will come from the states.³ This implies that the centre will fund almost 75% of the scheme.

Underutilisation of Funds

Data from the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) shows that funds have not been fully utilised under the MPF scheme. In the year 2015-16, out of a total grant of Rs 9,203 crore that was made available for modernisation, states utilised only Rs 1330 crore (14%).[6]

Figure 2 shows the trend in underutilisation of modernisation funds from 2009-10 to 2015-16. Over this period, there has been a consistent underutilisation of funds by states. On average, states spent 55% of the funds allocated to them, with the highest being 86% utilisation in 2013-14.

Figure 2: Utilisation of funds for modernisation by states (%)

Fig 2

Sources: Data on Police Organisations, Bureau of Police Research and Development, 2016; PRS.

Issues related to police forces

While the MPF scheme seeks to improve police infrastructure, there are a number of structural issues that have been raised by experts over the years related to police forces. We discuss a few of these below.

(i) Overburdened police force

Apart from the core function of maintaining law and order, police personnel carry out various other functions such as traffic management, disaster rescue and removal of encroachments. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) has noted that these extra obligations lead to overburdening of the police force. It recommended that these functions should be carried out by other government departments or private agencies.[7] Note that as of January 2016, 24 per cent of sanctioned police posts in India were vacant.⁶This indicates that police personnel may be overburdened, which may have negative consequences on their efficiency and performance.

(ii) Poor quality of investigation

In 2015, the conviction rate for crimes recorded under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was only 47%.[9] The Law Commission (2012) observed that one of the reasons for low conviction rates in India is poor quality of investigation by police.[8] The police lack training and expertise required to conduct professional investigations. They also have insufficient legal knowledge and inadequate forensic and cyber infrastructure. In light of these deficiencies, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) recommended that states should have specialised investigation units within the police force for better investigation of crimes.⁷

(iii) Police accountability

In India, control over the police force vests with the political executive.[10] The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) noted that this has to led to abuse of police personnel and interference with their decision-making authority.⁷ To allow the police operational autonomy while maintaining accountability, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to the central government and state governments (and Union Territories) in the year 2006.[11]

The guidelines provided for the establishment of three institutions: (i) a State Security Commission, (ii) a Police Establishment Board, and (iii) a Police Complaints Authority.¹¹ The Supreme Court also stated that the state Director General of Police (DGP) should be selected from three senior-most officers of the state empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission and must have a minimum two-year tenure.

In addition, the court recommended that officers in key positions in the field (Inspector General in charge of Range, Station House Officer) must be given a two-year tenure. Currently, DGPs and senior officers are selected by the political executive of the state and are not guaranteed security of tenure.[10] In order to improve the quality of investigation, the Court recommended that investigating police must be separated from law and order police.¹¹

These guidelines and recommendations of other expert bodies were used to create the draft Model Police Bill, 2015 by BPR&D, which states have been encouraged to adopt. While states have partially implemented some of these guidelines, no state has adhered to them in full.[12] In most states, the three institutions which the Supreme Court has directed states to create have not been given the authority they need to ensure accountability and insulate the police force from political misuse.¹²

[1]Entry 1 and 2, List II, Schedule 7, Constitution of India, 1950.

[2] Modernisation of Police Force Scheme Book, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2010 http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/Scheme-MPF-11Nov.pdf.

[3] “Cabinet approves umbrella scheme of Modernisation of Police Forces”, Press Information Bureau, 27^th September 2017.

[4] Annual Report, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2015-16, http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/AR(E)1516.pdf.

[5] “Major Programmes Under Central Assistance for State Plans”, Union Budget, 2015-16 http://indiabudget.nic.in/budget2015-2016/ub2015-16/bag/bag8.pdf.

[6] “Data on Police Organisations”, Bureau of Police Research and Development, 2016, http://bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/201701090303068737739DATABOOK2016FINALSMALL09-01-2017.pdf.

[7] “Public Order”, Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2007, http://arc.gov.in/5th%20REPORT.pdf.

[8] “Report No. 239: Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases Against Influential Public Personalities”, Law Commission of India, March 2012, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report239.pdf.

[9] “Crime in India”, National Crime Records Bureau, 2006-15 http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2015/FILES/Compendium-15.11.16.pdf.

[10] Section 3, Police Act, 1861.

[11] Prakash Singh vs Union of India, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, November 8, 2010.

[12] “Building Smart Police in India: Background into the needed Police Force Reforms”, Niti Aayog, 2016, http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Strengthening-Police-Force.pdf.

Tenure and salaries of CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Rules, 2019

No comments

Anya Bharat Ram - October 29, 2019 Comments

The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 amended the Right to Information Act, 2005. The RTI Act, 2005 specified the tenure, terms of service and salaries of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at the central and state levels, in the parent law. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 removed these provisions and stated that the central government will notify the term and quantum of salary through rules.[1]^,[2]

The Right to Information Rules, 2019 were notified on October 24, 2019.[3] These rules set out the tenure, terms of service and salaries of the CIC and ICs at the state and central levels. Table 1 compares the provisions related to the tenure and salary of the CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019

Table 1: Comparison of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019

Provision

RTI Act, 2005

RTI Rules, 2019

Term

The CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of five years.

The CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of three years.

Salary

The salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month)

Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month) and the Chief Secretary to the state government (Rs 2,25,000 per month), respectively.

The CIC and ICs (at the central level) shall receive a pay of Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2,25,000 per month, respectively.

CICs and ICs (at the state level) shall receive a pay of Rs. 2,25,000 per month.

Source: The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019; The High Court and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2017; Indian Administrative Services (Pay) Rules, 2016; PRS.

[1] Right to Information Act, 2005, https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf.

[2] Right to Information (Amendment Act), 2019, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/The%20Right%20to%20Information%20(Amendment)%20Bill,%202019%20Text.pdf.

[3] The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/213438.pdf.

More Privatisation on the cards?

No comments

MR Madhavan and Prachee Mishra - October 22, 2019 Comments

The core group of secretaries on disinvestment has recently approved the disinvestment of five public sector undertakings (PSUs). This includes the entire shareholding of the government in four PSUs: Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) and THDC (operates and maintains the Tehri Hydro Power Complex), and 30% of the shareholding in Container Corporation of India Limited (Concor). The government currently holds 54.8% of Concor, so the sale will reduce its stake below 25%.

Over the last few years, the government has removed legislative barriers towards privatisation of several other PSUs. This raises the question whether the government plans to privatise them.

What was the Supreme Court’s order on privatisation of PSUs?

In 2003, a similar proposal had been raised by the government for the sale of its shareholding in HPCL and BPCL. This proposal was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it would violate the provisions of the laws that transferred ownership of certain assets to the government (which later formed these PSUs). For example, BPCL was formed by nationalising Burmah Shell in India through an Act of Parliament, and merging their refinery and marketing companies. The Court ruled that the central government cannot proceed with the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL (i.e., reduce its direct or indirect ownership below 51%) without amending the concerned laws. So the government continues to hold majority stake directly in BPCL, and indirectly in HPCL ( through ONGC, another PSU).

The five Companies approved for privatisation include BPCL and SCI (into which two nationalised companies, the Jayanti Shipping Company, and the Mogul Line Limited were merged). The relevant nationalisation Acts have been repealed over the last five years.

How did the government remove the legislative barriers for privatisation?

Between 2014 and 2019, Parliament passed six Repealing and Amending Acts which repealed around 722 laws. These included laws that had transferred the ownership of companies to the central government which later formed BPCL, HPCL, and OIL. These also repealed the laws that had transferred ownership of the companies to the central government which were later merged with the SCI. This implies that now the government can go ahead with the privatisation of these government companies as the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court’s order have been fulfilled. These Repealing and Amending Acts also repealed several other nationalisation laws that were later formed into PSUs. In the Table below, we have listed some of these companies. Note that the Law Commission of India (2014) had suggested the repeal of several of these laws (including the Esso Act, the Burmah Shell Act, the Burn Company Act) on the grounds that these laws do not serve any purpose with respect to the nationalised entity. However, it had suggested that a study of all the nationalisation Acts should be done before repealing these Acts, and if necessary a savings clause should be provided in the repealing Act.

Did Parliament scrutinise these Acts before passing them?

Many of these repeals were made through the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016. These include the Acts relating to BPCL, HPCL, OIL, Coal India Limited, SCI, National Textiles Corporation, Hindustan Copper and Burn Standard Company Limited. The Bill was not referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee, and was passed after a cursory debate (50 minutes in Lok Sabha and 20 minutes in Rajya Sabha). Similarly, the two Acts passed in 2017, that enable privatisation of SAIL, PowerGrid, and State Trading Corporation were not examined by a Standing Committee.

So what comes next?

The repeal of these Acts have cleared the legislative hurdle for privatisation of these companies. That is, the government does not need prior approval of Parliament to sell its shareholding. Therefore, it is now up to the government to decide whether it wishes to privatise these entities.

A version of this article was published by the Business Standard on October 20, 2019.

Table 1: Some Nationalisation Acts repealed since 2014 (list not exhaustive)

Company	Act being repealed	Repealing Act
Shipping Corporation Of India (SCI)	The Jayanti Shipping Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1971	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Shipping Corporation Of India (SCI)	The Mogul Line Limited (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1984	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)	The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)	The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
	The Caltex [Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977
	The Kosangas Company (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1979
Coal India Limited (CIL)	The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
	The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
	The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
	The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)	The Bolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)	The Indian Iron and Steel Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1976	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited	The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems) Act, 1993.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited	The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission System) Act, 1994.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Oil India Limited (OIL)	The Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC)	The Tea Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Sick Tea Units) Act, 1985	Repealing and Amending Act, 2017
National Textile Corporation Limited (NTC)	The Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
	The Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983
	The Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1976
Hindustan Copper Limited	The Indian Copper Corporation (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1972	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Burn Standard Co Ltd	The Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalisation) Act, 1976	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Indian Railways	The Futwah-Islampur Light Railway Line (Nationalisation) Act, 1985	Repealing and Amending Act, 2016
Braithwaite & Co Limited, Ministry of Railways	The Braithwaite and Company (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1976.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Braithwaite & Co Limited, Ministry of Railways	The Gresham and Craven of India (Private) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.	The Brentford Electric (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1987	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.	The Transformers and Switchgear Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1983	Repealing and Amending Act, 2019
Alcock Ashdown (Guj) Limited, Government of Gujarat Undertaking	The Alcock Ashdown Company Limited (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1973.	Repealing and Amending Act, 2019
Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (BCPL)	The Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Organisations under Department of Pharmaceuticals	The Smith, Stainstreet and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017
Organisations under Department of Pharmaceuticals	The Bengal Immunity Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984.	Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017

Sources: Repealing and Amending Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending Act, 2016; Repealing and Amending Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending Act, 2019.

Modernisation of Police Forces

Subscribe to the PRS Blog