Police reform in Goa has always been the subject of discussion, with no one really intending to put thought to action. The irony is that when a bill was finally drafted and introduced in the house, it was promptly dispatched to a select committee which literally sat on it for so long that the bill itself lapsed. The nine-member select committee was headed by then Home Minister Ravi S Naik. The 68-page bill reiterated the need for redefining the role of the police, its duties and responsibilities, by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of the state, the imperatives of good governance and respect for human rights. It was aimed at “empowering the police personnel to carry out functions as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency,” according to the preamble.
We now hear that it is coming back, knowing not, in which avatar it will remerge. But going by the penchant of our law makers to “lift” from what is readily available (as was the case with the abolition of properties bill), the 2008 bill may well be the base for the new 2014 model of the bill.
So why is police reform such a hot potato and delaying reform a political necessity? The safety net, for a government and force which has repeatedly allowed offenders in uniform to get away, and done nothing for the betterment of the lives of honest dedicated policemen, is that reform legislation has always been blocked. Even as the government says that it plans to introduce a reform bill, the information is accompanied by the word “likely”. Ineffective legislation allows policemen to commit murder and rape and be reinstated as charges take long to prove, even after courts holds them prima facie guilty of acts including murder in custody. The Cipriano Fernandes murder case in which all policemen on duty at the Panjim Police station in January 2011, were charged with murder, is a classic example.
While the bill will establish several needed mechanisms to control, monitor and check the errant policemen, it has a scope for community policing and benefits for policemen. Therefore, reforms have to happen as much for society as for policemen themselves. These priorities are seldom underlined and highlighted though.
The bill of 2008, on which the current bill is likely to be drawn, has the formation of three units which will be pillars of the police system a) A police commission which will be an ombudsman to oversee police functioning and keep a tab on reform, b) a police establishment board which will oversee recruitments, promotions and transfers and c) most importantly a Police Accountability Authority, which will monitor and act on the conduct of all policemen especially cases of police atrocities and death and violence in custody as well as grevious hurt in police custody under section 320 of the IPC. This authority will look into specific cases of rape, land grabbing and extortion by placement. But before we jump and say good morning when we hear that this authority has all the powers as a civil court under CrPc, there’s a rider “The recommendations (of the Police accountability Authority) shall be binding “unless the state government disagrees”, the 2008 bill says.
Clearly, any bill that comes into play will never let the political dispensation leave all powers to independent authorities even if they consist of professionals from the establishment. If police reform has to be done in spirit more than letter, then the government has to limit its involvement to policy and let professionals do their job. It is only then that authorities like the Police Commission and the Police Establishment Board and the Police Accountability Authority have meaning.
