Let’s examine the Supreme Court’s directions. The creation of state security boards, originally recommended by the National Police Commission headed by Dharam Vira, opens up unchartered territory. One is unsure whether CMs will agree to dilute their control over the police. With the Opposition’s representative on the board, it is doubtful if it can ever develop a unified perception of any police action to maintain law and order.

The prescription on the mode of appointment of the director general of police is based on the premise that free from the threat of premature removal from office, the DGP will be emboldened to direct the police impartially. The CBI was the first organisation to which the Supreme Court applied this remedy for almost identical reasons. But the perception that the CBI continues to serve the partisan interests of the ruling dispensation persists. As long as PMs/CMs can dangle post-retirement allurements to key functionaries, fixed tenures will not be a substitute for the strength of character required to ensure fair play by civil servants. Fixed tenures can in fact lead to abuse, a backdoor device for extending the length of service of chosen officers. Therefore, fixed tenure shouldn’t involve extension of service beyond the retirement age.

Empanelment by the UPSC as a precondition for appointment as head of the police is a wholesome proposition. But it has one pitfall. Annual Confidential Reports on which the UPSC will be dependent don’t adequately capture the ability to take hard decisions. Only an analysis of the nature of assignments held over 25-30 years and a secret poll of fellow IPS officers, other than those in the peer group or those having less than five years’ service, will mark out the deserving. This innovation is worth trying.

... contd.