(a) whether the Government proposes to introduce a Bill on Police reforms in the light of
recommendations made by the Soli Sorabjee Committee;
(b) if so, the details thereof;
(c) if not, the reasons therefor;
(d) the time by which such Bill is likely to be introduced;
(e) whether the Supreme Court had issued a directive to the Government on Police reforms; and
(f) if so, the details thereof and the action taken by the Government in this regard?
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI MULLAPALLY RAMACHANDRAN)
(a) to (d): There is no proposal under consideration of the Government to introduce a Bill on
Police Reforms in the light of recommendations made by the Soli Sorabjee Committee. Police
is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and therefore, the Police
Reforms is priminarily the responsibility of the State Governments. It is further stated
that the Ministry of Home Affairs had set up the Sorabjee Committee to draft a Model
Police Act in September, 2005 which submitted its report alongwith the Model Police Act on
30th October, 2006. The copy of the Model Police Act as framed by the Committee was sent to
all States/UTs for consideration and appropriate action. As per available information Assam,
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil
Nadu, Tripura and Uttrakhand have either framed new Police Act or amended the existing act.
(e) & (f): In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310/1996-Prakash Singh & Others Vs UOI & Others, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed judgement dated 22.9.2006 on various aspects of Police Reforms
which inter-alia included
(i) Setting up of State Security Commission,
(ii) Selection methodology and minimum tenure of Director General of Police,
(iii) Minimum tenure of Inspector General of Police and other key police functionaries,
(iv) Separation of investigation wing from law & order wing,
(v) Setting up of Police Establishment Board, and
(vi) Setting up of Police Complaints Authority, and directed Union of India /State Governments
and Union Territories to file their affidavits of compliance. Accordingly affidavits were
filed by them inter-alia stating status of compliance as well as difficulties in complying
with some of the direction of the Supreme Court. The matter was heard successively by
Supreme Court on different dates. It was last heard on 16.5.2008, in which Supreme Court
as regards the implementation of the various directions made earlier in its judgement dated
22.9.2006 directed to set up a Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K.T. Thomas,
former retired Judge of the Supreme Court and other two persons, as members with the earmarked
terms and conditions which are subject to the variation by the Commission. The Commission
has been given the time period initially for a period of two years only. However, the Hon’ble
Court may extend its life span, if considered, necessary.
The terms and conditions laid down by Supreme Court which are subject to the variation by the
Commission are as under :-
(i) To examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in
compliance to the Court’s directions with reference to the ground realities.
(ii) Advise the Respondents wherever the implementation is falling short of the Court’s
orders, after considering the Respondents’ stated difficulties in implementation.
(iii) Bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems the Respondents may be having in
view of the specific conditions prevailing in a State or Union Territory.
(iv) Examine the new legislations enacted by different States regarding the police to see
whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of this Hon’ble Court’s directions.
(v) Apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any Respondent
so that appropriate follow up action could be taken against that Respondent.
(vi) Submit a status report on compliance to this Hon’ble Court every six months.
The Commission has so far held seven meetings in this regard. The Commission submits
periodic report to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter is presently sub-judice.