Sacking of the British Home Secretary Suella Braverman by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak brings into focus the issue of police autonomy and accountability in a democratic government. The dismissal came after Braverman wrote an opinion piece in the Times of London in which she blamed the Metropolitan Police for “playing favourites” with the Palestinian protesters whom she described as “hate marchers”.

The Minister’s action invited strong criticism from MPs cutting across party lines. The pro-Palestine protesters were gathering in London every weekend to demand a halt to Israel’s air and ground offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The Sunak government viewed the programmes as disruptive and wanted the police to ban them. But London police Chief Mark Rowley categorically maintained that any ban would require intelligence “threat of serious disorder and so far that threshold has not been crossed.” The Government did not try to override the police decision.

The Prime Minister said that Britain must “remain true to the right to protest and free speech even if we do not agree with them.” The role of the police in a democratic society is difficult, complex and can be unbelievably thankless. From no other profession is so much demanded with so little recompense. The police have to work in an everchanging society. To quote the Royal Commission on Police, “There is nothing constant about the range and variety of police duties just as there is nothing constant about the patterns and hidden trends in society that dispose man to crime…”

Further, policing today requires a high degree of professionalism. The old concept of a policeman as a “Renaissance Man” who once he affixes his badge becomes magically able to perform any job has to be done away with. Police officers also enjoy awesome authority in matters relating to life and liberty of the citizens. Hence it is essential that the police should act within the four corners of the law and respect the constitutional rights of citizens. In a democratic state there should not be any interference from anywhere in discharge of the lawful functions of the police. Totalitarian states are called police states because the police enjoy not only unbridled authority but remain vulnerable to extra-legal pressures and influence. In Great Britain, the Royal Commission of Police (1962) in its Final Report stated, “The case of Fisher v Oldham Corporation established that whatever else he might be, the constable was not a servant of any organ of the government.”

Not only in the United Kingdom but in other democratic countries such as Canada, New Zealand, etc., the police forces are independent operationally and only respond to operational directives emanating from within the force. In Japan police authorities themselves are virtually sovereign in respect of internal control though there are Public Safety Commissions to oversee overall management of the force.

The police authorities are supreme in respect of internal control. In Indian democracy, however, the situation remains different and dismal. Constant interference in police work by the political masters has made the police ineffective and has totally eroded its autonomy. Section 3 of the Police Act of 1861 provides that the superintendence of police shall vest in and be exercised by the State Government.

This provision of the Act has been unabashedly used to interfere in the regular working of the police. In the words of a perceptive American police scholar David Bayley, the rule of law in modern India has been undermined by the “rule of politics”. Instead of rapidly transforming the organisation of the police after independence, the same system which the British had created in 1861 continues. The control mechanism of the British Raj was invigorated by the new political dispensation. It is interesting to note that the Chief Minister of almost every state has taken charge of the police.

This is a dramatic indication of the importance of police in the political life of contemporary India. The National Police Commission made some pertinent and significant recommendations to insulate the police from extraneous pressures and influence and to ensure its independence in the operational areas of police investigation. The National Human Rights Commission also endorsed these crucial recommendations.

The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others v Union Of India issued some clear directives to State governments to implement these recommendations and laid down mechanisms to insulate the police from extraneous pressures, but the political masters have through various devices tried to stall and scuttle them. Some states have enacted new police Acts which are more retrogressive than the Police Act of 1861.

They want the status quo to continue and keep their firm stranglehold over the police. They tend to forget that the ruling party’s police can never command the support and confidence of the people. But along with police autonomy there must be police accountability. Accountability, as the National Police Commission has mentioned in its report, means answerability for the proper performance of the assigned task.

While it is true that the ultimate responsibility of the police is to the people, the police have the proximate responsibility to the law of the land which is the expression of the popular will. It is aptly said that the relationship of the police to the law is instrumental as well as professional. It is a tool in their hands for initiating action against the offending members of the public while it also lays down the standards under which police will exercise their functions. Indeed an independent and abusive police poses a fundamental problem for the legitimacy of the legal and political order.

International Human Rights Standards also firmly emphasise police accountability. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Torture, and the Code of conduct for Law Enforcement officers, condemn abuse of authority or use of unnecessary and excessive force by the police. In India, the code for Law enforcement officials has been incorporated in the code of conduct for Police officials issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. For ensuring police accountability people have to be made aware of their rights and they should be willing to exercise the same in a responsible manner.

Public awareness also must involve realisation of the problems and constraints under which the police function. The police in turn must also try to understand, as observed by the National Police Commission that “their ultimate accountability is to the people and people alone. Their accountability to law and to the organisation is only complementary to the ultimate objective of accountability to the people.”

(The writer is Senior Fellow Institute of Social Sciences, a former Director General of the National Human Rights Commission and former Director, National Police Academy)