Police Reforms in India

In 2006, the Supreme Court gave every state until 31 December to fix its police force. A 2024 audit checked back, nearly two decades later. Not one state had fully complied. This article covers the Prakash Singh case, its seven directives, and why compliance stalled.

1Chapter 1: The Case and the Seven Directives

Must Know

From the Commission to the PIL

• The National Police Commission was set up in 1977 to study how policing should work.
• It filed eight reports between 1979 and 1981, recommending sweeping reform.
• Successive governments largely shelved them.
• Prakash Singh served as Director General of Police in Uttar Pradesh and Assam, and headed the Border Security Force.
• In 1996, he filed a public interest litigation asking the Supreme Court to force states to adopt the Commission’s stalled reforms.
• The case took a full decade to reach a final verdict.

The 2006 verdict

• On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Prakash Singh v. Union of India and issued seven binding directives.
• Every state and Union Territory had to comply, along with the Union government.
• States had until 31 December 2006.
• Almost none met that date.

The seven directives

• 1. State Security Commission in every state, to shield the police from political pressure and set broad policy.
• 2. DGP selection and tenure: a merit-based, transparent process and a fixed two-year tenure.
• 3. Field-officer tenure: a minimum two-year tenure for operational officers, such as SPs and station heads.
• 4. Split investigation from law and order, so one officer is not stretched across both.
• 5. Police Establishment Board: the DGP plus four senior officers, deciding transfers, postings and promotions below Deputy Superintendent.
• 6. Police Complaints Authorities at state and district level, for serious misconduct complaints, including against officers of Superintendent rank and above.
• 7. National Security Commission at the Centre, selecting chiefs of Central Police Organisations, who also get a minimum two-year tenure.
• Why split investigation? A constable chasing a riot and a constable building a case need very different skills and time.

2Chapter 2: Why Compliance Stalled

Good to Know

Looking compliant, staying in control

• Most states passed new Police Acts or amended old ones after 2006.
• The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) found many were built to look compliant.
• They quietly kept the government’s real control over transfers and postings.
• That control is exactly what the directives were meant to remove.

Who did better and worse

• Kerala, Meghalaya and Tripura rank relatively better.
• Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh rank among the worst.
• Uttar Pradesh is Prakash Singh’s own home state.
• See Kerala, Meghalaya, Bihar and Jharkhand.

1861 and 2006: the same lever

• The colonial Police Act of 1861 was built to keep police under tight government control.
• The 2006 judgment tried to loosen that control, 145 years later.
• Both turn on one lever: who decides an officer’s transfer and tenure.
• “Insulate the police from political control” is easy to write.
• It is hard to enforce, because the people who must give up control are the ones who must carry out the order.

3Chapter 3: Current Affairs

Current Affairs

The India Justice Report 2025

• Launched in April 2025, this index ranks states on the real capacity of their justice system: police, judiciary, prisons and legal aid.
• Karnataka topped the large-state rankings, with Andhra Pradesh and Telangana close behind.
• Sikkim led among small states.
• It measures budgets, staffing and infrastructure, not the seven directives specifically.
• Both point the same way: uneven state capacity. (Source: Tata Trusts, India Justice Report 2025.)

Haryana proposes changes, July 2025

• Haryana’s State Law Commission recommended amending its 2007 Police Act, in a report dated July 2025.
• One change would stretch a tenure-protection period from three years to five.
• Another would clarify the six-month window for its Police Complaints Authority to decide a case.
• This is a recommendation, not yet a law. (Source: Haryana State Law Commission, 27th Report.)

Related

• Judicial Activism in India
• NHRC: India’s Human Rights Watchdog
• Centre-State Relations and the Federal Structure
• The Sarkaria Commission
• Statutory Bodies for Rights and Welfare

Quick Q&A

• NPC reports? Eight, 1979–81.
• PIL filed? 1996.
• Verdict date? 22 September 2006.
• PEB size? DGP plus four senior officers.
• Police Act of? 1861.