Font size: 
Often, such gimmicks could pacify Keralites. There are several examples. Recently, a commission of this nature was constituted by the state government to inquire into alleged cases of custodial deaths reported in the state. The appointment of the commission was widely advertised by the government. However, the public was not adequately informed on ways to contact the commission. Consequently, those who wanted to approach the commission did not know where to go or whom to write.
A retired High Court judge, suspected to be a member of the ruling party of the state government, headed the commission. The results of a commission headed by such a person are obvious. The commission, after wasting public money, concluded what the government wanted. It exonerated the government and state police from custodial deaths. Public figures in Kerala, who used to take to the street and block traffic to protest against such "serious" issues as droughts in a God-only-knows-where country, remained silent. These usually "righteous" gurus were apparently unconcerned about those who had died in police custody.
Unfortunately, violence committed by the local police is not news in India and Kerala is no exception. Various governments have used the state police to kill, torture and terrorize ordinary people whenever they wished. The police allowed state governments to use them for such purposes because they knew that it was the only way to continue their unethical and illegal practices.
Every person in Kerala, including the police, knows that the Kerala State Police is a synonym for irresponsibility, corruption, and violence. Referring to a person as a "policeman" has become a euphemism for ineptitude in Kerala. What can one expect, when the process, from recruitment to transfer and promotion, including advancement within the state police is determined by political allegiances and bribes paid at various levels of the administration?
However, it appears that the state government is now facing new pressures. This time, however, it is not from the ordinary people living in the state, but from the Supreme Court of India. The trouble began when Prakash Singh filed a case in the Supreme Court requesting the court's intervention to remove the unwarranted control of state governments over policing in all states in India. Ironically, Singh was also a police officer.
The Supreme Court finally decided the case, ordering state governments and the central government to take immediate steps to delink the state police from their control and from politicians. The court, based on its experience, knew that the state governments would never implement its directives. Thus, it set deadlines to implement its orders. The government of Kerala tried to rally a few other state governments to file a revision against the order on grounds that it infringed its authority. However, the court refused to budge leaving the state governments no options but to implement the Supreme Court's directives.
It is at this point that the government of Kerala decided to constitute a new policing institution in the state. On February 12, it issued the Police Complaints Authority, established in accordance with the Kerala Police Act (Amendment) Ordinance of 2007.
The commission will be constituted under the chair of retired High Court Judge K. K. Dineshan. However, for it to be fully functional, the government must immediately appoint the remaining members of the authority at the state and district level. While a welcome development, this decision, however, is not in complete compliance with the court's directive. Rather, it is a piecemeal implementation of the court's order as explained below. Though compliance by the state government with all the directives of the court remains questionable, the newly formed authority is expected to deal with complaints by and against the state police.
If the government is serious about improving the performance of the state police, then the mere creation of the Police Complaints Authority is not sufficient. The ordinance issued by the government, to meet the deadlines set by the Supreme Court, has, in fact, diluted the court's orders.
For example, the direction of the Supreme Court is that the "recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and state levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority."
However, the ordinance issued by the state government regarding the enforceability of the findings of the complaints authorities, has weakened the above direction of the court: "Recommendations of the Authority . . . against a delinquent police officer shall be binding in so far as initiation of departmental proceedings or registration of a criminal case is concerned. Such recommendation shall, however, not prejudice the application of mind by the inquiry officer or the investigating officer when he is conducting the departmental inquiry or criminal investigation, as the case may be."
In a similar fashion, the ordinance has reduced the power of the state and district level complaints authorities to that of a civil court. The Supreme Court's direction is to provide the complaints authorities' independent investigative facilities to investigate a complaint as in a scientific criminal investigation. Under the current ordinance, no such provision is made.
Now that the state government has begun setting up the Police Complaints Authority, the government must immediately ensure that the authority will have the minimum infrastructure it needs to serve its mandate. The problem the government might face, if it fails to do so is that, this time it has to pacify none other then the highest court of India.
What remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court is respected any differently than the average populace of the state, also known as Malayalee's, especially when a Malayalee heads the court as its chief justice.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
