Police reforms: the unfinished agenda from Prakash Singh to SMART policing

The Indian police are still governed, in spirit and in several states in letter, by a law written to keep colonial subjects in line. The Police Act of 1861 was designed for control, not service, and Justice K.T. Thomas’s verdict on it has become the theme of the subject: in the police, change is desired but never realised. In 2006 the Supreme Court tried to force change through seven binding directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. Two decades later, not a single state has fully complied with all seven. This article explains the 1861 legacy, the seven directives, the committees that preceded them, and why reform keeps stalling in the states.

Police is a State subject under Entry 2, List II of the Seventh Schedule, which makes reform politically sensitive and federally complex: the states own the force, and the force is the instrument no state government wants to give up controlling. That single fact explains more of the reform story than any committee report.

The 1861 legacy

The Police Act of 1861 was written after the 1857 revolt to make the police the ruler’s force, not the citizen’s friend. It centralised control in the executive, gave the district magistrate authority over the police, and organised the force for order-maintenance rather than investigation or service. Around ten states still operate under frameworks substantially derived from the 1861 Act. The result, in the sources’ diagnosis, is a force seen as the ruler’s instrument: political interference is routine, with frequent transfers and postings used as political tools, and the 2nd ARC flagged a transfer industry in policing just as in the civil services. The police also carry a dual-role conflict: the same officer handles both law-and-order and investigation, overloading both and degrading both.

The human-resource numbers tell the understaffing story. India has roughly 155 police personnel per lakh population against a sanctioned 197.5 and a UN-recommended benchmark of 222, per the India Justice Report 2025. The vast majority of the force, roughly 86 per cent, sits in the constabulary cadre with limited promotion pathways, long working hours and disproportionate diversion to VIP and bandobast duty. Women constitute only 11.7 per cent of the force, per BPRD data for 2023. Conviction rates hover around 55 per cent for IPC crimes, falling to about 28 per cent for rape and 43 per cent for murder, per NCRB data. Police expenditure is only about 3.1 per cent of total state budgets, and the Modernisation of Police Forces scheme has historically been underutilised.

The seven binding directives of Prakash Singh (2006)

On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India with seven binding directives. First, a State Security Commission in every state to prevent unwarranted political interference in policing. Second, the DGP to be selected from a panel of senior-most officers through a transparent process with UPSC empanelment, with a fixed tenure of two years irrespective of the date of superannuation. Third, a fixed two-year tenure for IG, DIG, SP and SHO ranks. Fourth, separation of investigation from law-and-order, with a separate investigation cadre for crimes punishable with seven or more years of imprisonment. Fifth, a Police Establishment Board of senior police officers to handle transfers, postings, promotions and service matters of officers below DSP rank. Sixth, a Police Complaints Authority at the state level for senior officers (SP and above) and at the district level for junior officers, to inquire into misconduct, custodial deaths and serious complaints. Seventh, a National Security Commission at the Centre to prepare panels for the selection of chiefs of central police organisations, with fixed two-year tenures for those chiefs.

The implementation record is the scandal of the subject. As of recent assessments, not a single state has fully complied with all seven directives. Roughly 17 to 18 states have passed new Police Acts since 2006, but most dilute the Supreme Court’s directions rather than adopting them in full: a Justice K.T. Thomas Committee found that 17 of the 18 states that passed new laws diluted the SC directions. The Supreme Court set up a monitoring committee under Justice K.T. Thomas in 2008 and has issued contempt notices to non-compliant states over the years, without producing full compliance. Larger states, including Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, have shown the weakest compliance; the North-Eastern states have generally followed the directives more closely.

The committee lineage behind the judgment

Prakash Singh did not come out of nowhere; it codified three decades of committee work. The National Police Commission (1977-81) had already recommended replacing the 1861 Act, setting up State Security Commissions and separating investigation from law-and-order. The Ribeiro Committee (1998-99) recommended a Police Performance and Accountability Commission and civilian oversight. The Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000) recommended specialisation in law-and-order, investigation and traffic, plus community policing. The Malimath Committee (2003) on criminal justice reform recommended separation of investigation from law-and-order, special wings for organised crime, cyber crime and terrorism, forensic infrastructure modernisation and a witness protection scheme. The Police Act Drafting Committee under Soli Sorabjee drafted the Model Police Act of 2006, intended to replace the colonial Act with a professional, accountable, service-oriented law. The Justice Verma Committee (2013) added gender sensitisation training, CCTV in police stations and greater representation of women. And the Law Commission’s 273rd Report (2017) recommended an Anti-Torture Bill, which has still not been enacted.

Accountability: custodial violence and the missing law

The accountability side of policing is its darkest chapter and links directly to our article on prison reforms and custodial justice. The Sathankulam case of June 2020, in which P. Jeyaraj and his son J. Bennix died after custodial torture in Tamil Nadu, and the Hyderabad Disha case of December 2019, in which four accused were killed in an encounter, remain the recent reference cases. India signed the UN Convention Against Torture in 1997 but has still not ratified it, and the Law Commission’s recommended Anti-Torture Bill is pending. The Supreme Court’s D.K. Basu guidelines of 1997 set eleven mandatory steps for arrest and custodial procedures, including the arrest memo, identification of the arrestee, medical examination and informing the family. In Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) the Court mandated CCTV in all police stations; per the India Justice Report 2025, 17 per cent of police stations still have none.

SMART policing and the way forward

The reform vocabulary now speaks of SMART policing. NITI Aayog’s report “Building SMART Police in India” (2016) proposed fiscal incentives for states adopting the Model Police Act and recommended outsourcing non-core police functions to ease the staffing burden. The way forward the sources converge on runs through a dozen steps: implement the Prakash Singh directives with a centre-monitored compliance mechanism; replace the 1861 Act with new Police Acts based on the Model Police Act without dilution; set up independent Police Complaints Authorities with non-government members and quasi-judicial powers; separate investigation from law-and-order through a specialised investigation cadre; modernise forensics and cyber capacity; improve working conditions with eight-hour shifts on the Kerala model, adequate housing and mandatory weekly off; enact the Anti-Torture Bill and ratify UNCAT; strengthen community policing by replicating Kerala’s Janamaithri Suraksha Project and Punjab’s Saanjh models; enforce the D.K. Basu guidelines; and build transparency through CCTV coverage and body cameras. The Kerala Police Act of 2011, with its strong State Security Commission and District Police Complaints Authority, is the closest a state has come to the full Model Act vision.

Modernization gets its due

Reform is not only about who controls the police; it is also about what the police can do. The governance literature now treats police modernization as a good-governance input in its own right: sustained investment in modernization, alongside initiatives such as Rajasthan's Smart Policing Project, illustrates how better-equipped and better-trained forces enhance security and the rule of law. Modernization spending and structural reform are complements, not substitutes: new technology without accountability reforms digitises the old problems, and new accountability laws without equipment leave the force unable to deliver.

Key Terms

• District Police Complaints Authority: The District Police Complaints Authority is the district-level oversight body for complaints against police officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent, mandated by the Supreme Court's 2006 Prakash Singh directives on police reform. It inquires into allegations of misconduct, including custodial abuse, and recommends action. Example: a complaint of illegal detention can be taken to the district authority where the state has set one up. UPSC relevance: police accountability and the slow progress of the Prakash Singh reforms. Model Police Act drafts propose the authority as the citizen's first recourse against police high-handedness.
• Police Act Drafting Committee: The Police Act Drafting Committee was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2005 under former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee to draft a new model Police Act replacing the 1861 law. It submitted a draft Model Police Act in 2006 emphasising functional autonomy, accountability, and community policing. For UPSC it is the key reference in police reform questions. Its recommendation of fixed minimum tenures for Directors General of Police.
• Model Police Act, 2006: The Model Police Act, 2006 is the draft police law prepared by the Soli Sorabjee-led Police Act Drafting Committee and circulated by the Union government in 2006 as a template for states. Its core ideas are a State Security Commission to insulate policing from political pressure, a minimum two-year tenure for the DGP, separation of crime investigation from law-and-order duties, and district complaints authorities. For UPSC it embodies the reform agenda the Supreme Court pushed through the Prakash Singh directives. The proposed separation of investigation and law-and-order wings is cited in debates on improving conviction rates.
• National Security Commission: The National Security Commission is a proposed expert body recommended by the National Police Commission of 1977-81 to advise on national security appointments and assess the performance of police leadership. It was never constituted. For UPSC, it appears in police reform answers as an example of institutional proposals meant to insulate security functioning from political interference, alongside State Security Commissions. Its non-creation is cited to show how reform commissions' reports gather dust.
• Police Complaints Authority: A Police Complaints Authority is a body at the state and district levels recommended by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) to inquire into public complaints of serious misconduct by police personnel. It was meant to break the culture of impunity and give citizens an external redressal forum. For UPSC it represents judicially driven police accountability. A district authority probing a custodial violence complaint.
• National Police Commission: The National Police Commission was the first commission on police reform in independent India, set up in 1977 under Dharam Vira and submitting eight reports between 1979 and 1981. It recommended State Security Commissions, fixed tenures for police chiefs, separation of investigation from law and order, and a National Security Commission. For UPSC, its largely unimplemented recommendations are the starting point of every police reform answer, alongside the Prakash Singh judgment of 2006. The Supreme Court's directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India drew directly on this Commission's reports.
• Police Establishment Board: The Police Establishment Board is a departmental body mandated by the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh directives of 2006 to decide transfers, postings, promotions, and grievances of police officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It insulates personnel decisions from political interference. For UPSC it illustrates institutional safeguards for police autonomy. The Board approving district-level postings on merit rather than patronage.
• State Security Commission: A State Security Commission is the body mandated by the Supreme Court's 2006 Prakash Singh directives on police reform to lay down broad policy guidelines for the state police and insulate policing from political interference. Typically headed by the Chief Minister or Home Minister with the DGP as ex-officio secretary, it is central to debates on police accountability and autonomy. Example: the Tamil Nadu State Security Commission framing police policy guidelines. the Tamil Nadu State Security Commission framing police policy guidelines
• Kerala Police Act: The Kerala Police Act is the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the state law governing the constitution, duties and discipline of the Kerala police. It replaced the Police Act of 1861 for the state, created mechanisms like the State Police Complaints Authority, and laid down duties ranging from crime prevention to protection of vulnerable groups. It is cited in UPSC answers as an example of state-level police reform, since police and public order are State List subjects under the Seventh Schedule. its community-policing mandate underpins Kerala's Janamaithri Suraksha project
• Model Police Act: The Model Police Act is the 2006 draft prepared by the Police Act Drafting Committee headed by Soli Sorabjee and circulated by the Centre as a template to replace the colonial Police Act of 1861. It proposes a State Security Commission, fixed tenure for the Director General of Police, separation of investigation from law and order, and a police complaints authority. It is the reference point for UPSC questions on police reforms flowing from the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh directives. Several states drew on its provisions, such as fixed DGP tenure, while drafting their new police acts.
• Accountability Commission: The Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission was the erstwhile state's anti-corruption ombudsman, created by the Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Act of 2002 with jurisdiction over public functionaries, including the chief minister. It was wound up on 31 October 2019, when the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019 repealed the state laws sustaining it, and its functions passed to the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the central Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Seventh Schedule: The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution divides legislative subjects between the Union and the states through three lists: the Union List for Parliament alone (defence, foreign affairs, railways), the State List for state legislatures (police, public health, agriculture), and the Concurrent List where both can legislate, with Parliament prevailing in conflict. It is the operational core of Indian federalism. Education sits on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Amendment moved it there in 1976.

Practice questions