External Grievance Redress Mechanisms

 

The Police Rules, 1934 provided a role and power to the District Magistrate (DM) and Subordinate Magistracy for accountability of the police. Sections 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17 empowered the DM as head of criminal administration, making the police an instrument for the maintenance of public order. Although afforded powers to inspect police stations, the DM was forbidden to interfere in internal administration and discipline of the force. Under these sections, the DM could direct the Superintendent of Police (SP) to inquire against a police officer found negligent of his duties and guilty of misconduct that could affect the performance of police. He was also empowered to approve postings of Station House Offices (SHOs) and direct transfer of certain officers, where the activities of an officer were prejudicial to the welfare of a locality.

 

However, the law did not provide any effective mechanism to the DM to check police excesses. Furthermore, people were not provided any recourse against police misconduct. Sections 1.18, 1.10 and 1.20 required police officers and the subordinate magistracy to cultivate friendly relations to work as a team under the command of DM to maintain public peace. Since the DM was head of magistracy, and the law also envisaged him/her as a non-uniformed commander of the force, the spirit of law was that both wings under his/her command should work as a cohesive team to maintain public order.

 

A study of the powers and functions of DM and magistracy clearly shows that the powers of check and balance over the police were not intended to provide safeguards to the public, but sought to emphasis on the effectiveness of the system. Whatever little control was provided under the law eroded with the passage of time, as it became a priority for the DM to enjoy cordial relations with his/her counterparts and not upset them by employing the checks available to him/her under the law. The DM, being head of a district, was responsible for public order and needed total police cooperation, thus condoning police excesses at the cost of the public. This indifferent and biased conduct of the DM contributed towards the gradual brutalization of police behavior, which ended up as an oppressive force with little regard to the basic rights of citizens.

 

Additionally, under Criminal Procedure Code, the DM and subordinate magistracy were provided powers of judicial scrutiny in cases of illegal detentions/arrests, and of judicial accountability in incidents of police excesses (including custodial killings). Unfortunately, those powers were seldom used independently and judiciously, and actually served to provide judicial cover to police brutalities