Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian police system, a legacy of colonial rule, has long been criticized for its inadequacies in addressing contemporary security challenges and upholding citizens’ rights. Recognizing the need for comprehensive reforms, the Government of India constituted several committees over the years. The Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000), the Ribeiro Committee (1998), and the Mallinath Committee (2006) stand out as pivotal in shaping the discourse on police modernization and accountability. These committees aimed to address issues ranging from organizational structure and resource allocation to police-public relations and human rights compliance. This answer will comparatively analyze these reports, highlighting their similarities and differences.
Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000)
Also known as the National Police Commission II, this committee was constituted to review the implementation of the recommendations of the first National Police Commission (NPC) and suggest further measures for police reforms. Its mandate was broad, encompassing all aspects of policing. Key recommendations included strengthening the state security commissions, separating investigation work from law and order duties, establishing a National Security Council, and modernizing police infrastructure.
Ribeiro Committee (1998)
The Ribeiro Committee focused specifically on improving the law and order situation in the country. It emphasized the need for greater accountability, transparency, and responsiveness within the police force. Crucially, it advocated for fixed tenures for police officers at various levels to insulate them from political interference and enhance their professional integrity. It also stressed the importance of community policing and improving police-public relations.
Mallinath Committee (2006)
This committee was formed in the wake of the Mulayam Singh Yadav government’s resistance to implementing the Ribeiro Committee’s recommendations regarding fixed tenures. The Mallinath Committee was tasked with finding a solution acceptable to both the central and state governments. While upholding the principle of fixed tenures, it proposed a more flexible approach, allowing for transfers under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the State Security Commission.
Comparative Analysis
The three committees, while sharing the common goal of police reform, differed in their scope, emphasis, and approach. The following table summarizes the key comparisons:
| Parameter | Padmanabhaiah Committee | Ribeiro Committee | Mallinath Committee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Comprehensive; reviewed NPC recommendations & suggested further measures. | Focused on law and order; accountability & transparency. | Focused on resolving the fixed tenure issue. |
| Key Focus | Modernization, infrastructure, national security architecture. | Accountability, fixed tenures, community policing. | Fixed tenures with flexibility, State Security Commission role. |
| Accountability | Strengthening State Security Commissions. | Strong emphasis on accountability mechanisms. | Reinforced State Security Commission’s role in transfers. |
| Tenure | Indirectly addressed through organizational reforms. | Advocated for fixed tenures to reduce political interference. | Fixed tenures with provisions for exceptional transfers. |
| Implementation | Limited implementation; many recommendations remain unaddressed. | Partially implemented; faced resistance from state governments. | Led to some progress in implementing fixed tenures, but challenges remain. |
Areas of Convergence
- All three committees recognized the need to insulate the police from political interference.
- They all emphasized the importance of strengthening the State Security Commissions.
- Modernization of police infrastructure and equipment was a common theme.
Areas of Divergence
- The Ribeiro Committee was more assertive in its recommendations regarding fixed tenures, while the Mallinath Committee adopted a more conciliatory approach.
- The Padmanabhaiah Committee had a broader scope, encompassing national security concerns, while the other two focused primarily on law and order and police functioning.
Despite these reports, implementation has been slow and uneven. States have often resisted reforms that would diminish their control over the police. The lack of a strong political will and adequate financial resources has also hindered progress. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) further built upon these recommendations, advocating for a more holistic approach to police reforms.
Conclusion
The Padmanabhaiah, Ribeiro, and Mallinath Committees represent crucial milestones in the ongoing efforts to reform the Indian police system. While each committee brought unique perspectives and recommendations, they collectively highlighted the urgent need for greater accountability, transparency, and professionalism within the force. Despite some progress, significant challenges remain in translating these recommendations into concrete action. A sustained commitment from both the central and state governments, coupled with adequate funding and a strong political will, is essential to achieve meaningful and lasting police reforms in India.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.