Why India Needs Police Reform

A Haryana cadre IPS officer, Y. Puran Kumar, with about twenty-four years of service, committed suicide a few days ago. His autopsy was delayed because, in his note, he alleged bias and framing in a corruption case by his Director General of Police. In another case, an ASI ended his life, accusing an Inspector General of corruption. In Ludhiana, an ASI died in an accidental firing, while reports suggested that a DSP extorted more than one crore rupees from a private citizen. All these tragic incidents were reported in a single day, revealing the deep moral and institutional crisis within the police force.
A police officer in uniform represents the authority of the State and the trust of the people. According to the Punjab Police Rules of 1934, framed under British rule, the guiding principle was clear: it is the duty of all law-abiding citizens to maintain peace and arrest criminals, and the police and magistracy exist to help the public in fulfilling this general responsibility. It also emphasised that police officers should be regarded as wise and impartial friends &mdash protectors of life and property. This spirit of public service and integrity was once the foundation of policing, but that moral base has gradually eroded.
The British had reorganised the police on the pattern of Ireland and England through the Police Commission of 1860, separating the armed functions from the civil police. The 1902&ndash03 Police Commission again recommended a people-friendly civil police. Maharaja Darbhanga, a member of the Commission, raised the issue of equality between British officers of the Imperial Police and Indian Deputy Superintendents, marking one of the earliest demands for dignity and fairness within the service. In 1925, the Lumsden Committee on Police Reforms identified corruption, administrative confusion, and the overlapping roles of the magistracy and the police. While the British committed atrocities such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, they rarely allowed custodial deaths or fake encounters after arrest. Their intelligence system was strong, with meticulous reporting from the village level upward. Promotions were based on merit, and outstanding performance was recognised. There was little tolerance for corruption or political servility.
After Independence, the first major effort toward police reform was made by the Janata Party government in 1977 through the Dharamvir Committee. The report was submitted just as the Congress government under Smt. Indira Gandhi returned to power, and it was quietly shelved. Decades later, the Supreme Court of India had to intervene and direct all states to frame new Police Acts to replace the 1861 Act. The old British law was often criticised as draconian, but few had actually read it. Once, in a television debate, I challenged anyone to identify a single draconian clause in that Act, offering five lakh rupees as a reward. None could. The 1861 Act, though old, was clear, structured, and based on accountability. It was not perfect, but it was far more rational than the patchwork of arbitrary orders that have replaced it today.
In seventy-eight years of independence, neither the Centre nor most states have framed or implemented modern, uniform police rules. Instead, the vacuum is filled by ad hoc orders, political interference, and arbitrary decision-making. Having served the police for almost thirty-eight years, I have seen this transformation first-hand. In the early 1970s, most officers were honest to the core &mdash friends of the victims and a terror to criminals. They had the courage to refuse wrong orders from senior in department or even from politicians. Their pay was modest, but society respected them for their integrity. Those trained under British supervision carried a sense of honour and dignity. That generation retired by the late 1980s, taking with them the values of discipline and self-respect that once defined the force.
The Emergency of 1975&ndash77 marked a turning point. Some officers bent to political pressure and committed excesses, though many remained neutral. Over time, that neutrality gave way to opportunism. The British had designed a balanced system with fewer but better-paid officers. In 1934, a constable earned 17 rupees a month when gold was 18 rupees per tola, while the Inspector General of Police earned 2,500 rupees, a princely salary ensuring dignity and independence. There was one Inspector General per state, assisted by a few deputies, each personally responsible for the law and order of his jurisdiction.
Today, the trend is the reverse &mdash more officers, less pay, and little accountability. A state may have 25 officers of DGP or ADGP rank, with dozens of Inspectors General performing duties far below their status. Prestige now depends on posting, not rank. Postings are often driven by political influence rather than merit. This imbalance has eroded the old hierarchy and discipline, where even the most senior officer in service commanded natural respect. The problem is not the shortage of officers but the oversupply of compromised ones. In pursuit of comfortable postings, some compromise integrity, following verbal orders that have no legal or moral basis. Policing has become a career of convenience instead of a mission of service.
The new Police Acts drafted by various states are either impractical or unimplemented. Many accountability commissions are headed by retired judges or bureaucrats who have little practical understanding of police work. These institutions often become a burden on the exchequer rather than instruments of reform. Justice A. N. Mulla of the Allahabad High Court once described the police as &ldquocriminals in uniform,&rdquo a harsh judgment born of public frustration. Since then, similar observations have been made by other courts, but governments respond with silence or symbolic committees. The problem lies not in law alone but in the loss of spirit.
The British defined the policeman as a &ldquofriend of the public in uniform.&rdquo Sadly, in many places today, he has become a source of fear. Law-abiding citizens hesitate to enter a police station, while criminals enjoy political protection. When a police officer compromises his duty, he becomes a lawbreaker himself. The recent suicides of trained officers, experts in weapons and strategy, cannot be seen merely as personal tragedies. They are signs of a collapsing internal culture where self-respect, justice, and grievance mechanisms have vanished.
A democracy cannot function with a demoralised or politically enslaved police force. When honest officers are sidelined and corruption is rewarded, the rule of law collapses. The solution is not in slogans but in decisive reform. India must move from colonial control to constitutional policing &mdash fewer officers, better training, better pay, and freedom from political manipulation. The chain of command must be respected promotions must be based on merit and accountability must be transparent and impartial.
Training should focus not only on weapons and law but also on empathy, ethics, and community service. The police must rediscover the spirit of seva &mdash service &mdash that is central to Indian tradition. The uniform must again become a symbol of protection for the weak and fear for the criminal. The Supreme Court&rsquos directives on police reforms should be implemented in letter and spirit, not kept in cold storage. Without sincere reform, the rule of law will remain a slogan, and the nation&rsquos moral fabric will continue to weaken.
The police, once considered the pride of the nation, can regain its glory if only we restore dignity, discipline, and integrity to its ranks. Let us act before it is too late &mdash to save both the society and the police force itself.
Dr. Iqbal Singh Lalpura
Former Chairman, National Commission for Minorities
Government of India