Neeraj Rohmetra
JAMMU, Oct 24: The Government has ruled out the possibility of constitution of a State Security Commission or Police Complaints Authority in the border State, which were mooted as part of the Police reforms ushered in the country as a sequel to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court on the issue.
Besides, the State Government has also refused to segregate the wings of Investigation from law and order of Police Department as recommended by the Court.
These submissions had been made in an affidavit submitted by the State before the Supreme Court in response to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing number WP(C) No. 310/1996 filed by former DGP of Uttar Pradesh Prakash Singh, whereby the Court had issued seven specific directions inter-alia to States as a part of Police Reforms for implementation.
While one of direction pertained to the Central Government, the remaining six were directly related with respective State Governments.
Responding to these directions, the State Government in its affidavit has claimed that while it had already complied with three directions, there were serious issues related to the remaining ones and the situation wasn’t conducive to their implementation.
Elaborating on point number one, which pertains to the setting up of a State Security Commission (SSC), the Government has stated that the creation of SSC would amount to destabilizing the time-tested existing security infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir.
“In view of the existing security scenario of the State, there are multiple security agencies functioning at present, such as the Army, the Central Para-military Forces, local police, etc.”, the affidavit says adding, “all have to keep vigil in their respective jurisdiction and general coordination and control in exercised by the Unified Command chaired by the Chief Minister. At this juncture, creation of the SSC would amount to destabilizing the existing system”.
While responding to the point number four, which suggested separation of the Investigation Wing of Police Department from law and order, the State has submitted, “in view of the presence of multiple security agencies in the State, the prime concern of each one of which including the police is to maintain law and order in an extremely precarious security environment”.
“Keeping in view the safety of general public and integrity of the country, separation of investigation and law and order may be counter productive as it will disturb the existing security set up in the State. Therefore, it would be advisable to keep in abeyance the implementation of this direction till normalcy returns, in the larger interest of the State and till such period as this Court may deem fit and proper”, says the affidavit.
“Infact most of the terrorist related crime is accompanied by law and order and vice versa and have to be dealt with together. Involving two different agencies in tackling this serious problem involving national security may lead to a situation, which the terrorists may take advantage of”, the affidavit adds.
With regard to direction number six, which deals with Constitution of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at State and District levels for looking into complaints against police officers, the State Government through its counsel had submitted that many disruptive agencies were active in the State and there were large groups of separatists organizations with their links with terrorists outfits, who are on the look out for excuses for complaints against the functioning of the police and security agencies.
“Thus, at this juncture creation of the PCA would give fillip to their movement and there is every likelihood that the creation of such an authority would open a forum for them to lodge false and frivolous complaints against the police personnel to demoralize them, as well as to create impediments in their work of tackling terrorism”, says the document.
Besides, the State has statutory bodies like the State Human Rights Commission and the State Accountability Commission to address the complaints of public. “The Government complaints redressal mechanism through the State Vigilance Organization and Departmental superiors is also functioning very effectively to deal with complaints against police”, the affidavit says.
The affidavit also stated that so far as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the situation is quite different from other States. For example, in other States the Chief Minister and Home Minister is competent to deal with posting and transfer of official of the Police Department over and above the rank of Superintendent of Police. “However, in our State, all decision in respect of high ranking officials including Superintendent of Police and above is taken by the State Cabinet. No individual officer or Minister in competent to order such posting and transfers”, says the documents.
The State Government has filed another affidavit claiming compliance of directions number 2,3 and 5 of the Apex Court judgment pertaining to police reforms, whereas the direction No. 7 doesn’t pertain to the State.
As per the Supreme Court judgment dated September 22, 2006 on Police Reforms, the point number two pertained to the appointment of Director General of Police. The points states that the selection of DGP must be from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission and once selected, the official should be provided a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.
Point number three recommends prescribing minimum tenure of two years to the police officers on operational duties while the fifth point deals with setting up of the Police Establishment Board.
The case had come up for hearing before the Supreme Court few days back, where in the bench comprising Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice S S Nijjar and Justice J Chelameswar directed all State Governments and Union Territories to apprise it on the compliance with the directions passed six years ago for revamping the police machinery in the country, including a two-year term for DGPs. Advocate Sunil Fernandes had appeared as counsel for the Jammu and Kashmir Government in the case.
The Bench asked the States to file affidavits to the extent to which they had complied with the Apex Court’s September 22, 2006 order, directing a slew of reform to improve the police machinery.
The Court asked them to file the affidavits by November-end and posted the matter for further hearing on December 4.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel