On a winter night in December 2024, Somnath Suryawanshi—a 22-year-old law student—died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody in Parbhani, Maharashtra. His body showed over twenty visible injuries. Yet, a First Information Report (FIR) was not registered until eight months later, after a prolonged legal battle and the intervention of the Supreme Court of India.¹ The case, like many others, highlights a grim pattern of impunity within Indian policing.
India records an average of five custodial deaths every day, most of which never lead to conviction.² This widespread abuse is not a recent development, but the predictable outcome of a legal structure that has remained almost untouched since 1861, the year the Indian Police Act was enacted.
Crafted in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising, the Police Act of 1861 was designed not to serve a democratic population, but to control it. The colonial government needed a force that would be loyal to the Empire, capable of suppressing dissent, and strictly hierarchical in nature. The Act achieved exactly that. It established a police system tightly controlled by the executive, devoid of public accountability, and structured to prioritize the state’s interests over individual liberties.³
Fast-forward over 160 years: the very skeleton of that colonial design remains intact. Most Indian states still function under the original Police Act or under state legislations that mirror its core features. The question, therefore, is no longer academic but deeply political and moral: can a law written to suppress colonised subjects still define policing in a democratic republic?
India today aspires to be a constitutional democracy based on dignity, liberty, and accountability. Yet, it continues to rely on a policing framework that was never meant to uphold these ideals. The consequences are increasingly visible—in viral videos, in courtrooms, in human rights reports, and most tragically, on the cold floors of custodial cells.
The Origin of the Indian Police Act: A Colonial Control Tool
The year was 1861. Just four years earlier, the Indian subcontinent had witnessed the Revolt of 1857, a nationwide rebellion that jolted the British colonial administration. It exposed the fragility of British control and convinced the Crown that a more organized, watchful, and loyal force was needed—not to serve justice, but to suppress dissent. The result was the Indian Police Act of 1861, a legislation crafted not with democratic ideals in mind, but with imperial anxiety at its core.⁴
This new police system was designed to serve colonial interests. The structure of the force was strictly centralized and hierarchical, with senior officers reporting directly to British administrators. At the district level, the Superintendent of Police operated under the command of the District Magistrate, ensuring civil police remained closely aligned with the colonial executive.⁵ The force was neither autonomous nor community-focused; it was the extended arm of the Raj’s authority.
The Act’s ethos was unmistakably imperial. It placed a premium on loyalty, obedience, and discipline, not on protection of rights or democratic accountability. Policing, under this law, was less about public safety and more about control, surveillance, and coercion. Senior posts were typically held by British officers, while Indians were recruited into lower ranks, reflecting the racialized and authoritarian nature of the system.⁶
This legacy has endured far beyond its creators. Despite India’s independence in 1947 and the adoption of a democratic Constitution, the colonial architecture of policing was never meaningfully dismantled. Many states continue to function under the same or slightly modified versions of the 1861 law. The result? A policing culture still steeped in command-based hierarchy, executive interference, and a mindset that often prioritizes order over rights.⁷
To reform policing in India, we must confront this uncomfortable truth: a law designed for empire has no place in a democracy.
The Fault Lines of the Current System
A law designed for the Empire has birthed a police structure vulnerable to political interference. The Police Act of 1861 entrenched hierarchical control under the executive. Eight decades later, its legacy continues to undermine the very foundations of democratic policing.
Lack of independence from political interference:
Under the present system, political executives continue to wield unchecked authority over police leadership, transfers, and postings. Formerly subject to colonial administrators, today’s officers remain answerable to elected leaders. Surveys show that nearly two-thirds of police officers report pressure from influential individuals, and those who resist often face punitive transfers.⁸ This dynamic erodes impartiality and fosters a police culture aligned with power, not justice.
Inadequate protection of citizens’ rights:
Without statutory guidelines safeguarding due process, POW complaints, or FIR registration obligations, police can arbitrarily refuse to file cases or intimidate vulnerable groups. The Act provides no mandate for internal oversight or citizen access to complaint redressal. This gap contributes to widespread complaints of inaction—especially in cases involving marginalized communities or politically connected individuals.⁹
Absence of internal and external accountability:
Despite numerous recommendations from the Padmanabhaiah Committee to the Prakash Singh verdict—the 1861 law mandates no independent bodies for investigating misconduct or wrongful actions. Successive governments have sidestepped reforms or enacted weak statutes that maintain executive primacy. Attempts at reform remain superficial, with no mechanism for public review or independent oversight.¹⁰
Outdated provisions ill-equipped to tackle modern crimes:
The Act predates the digital era and offers no framework for handling cybercrime, biometric fraud, or transnational investment scams. As seen in Jharkhand, cybercriminals leverage remote locations and virtual IDs to victimize thousands.¹¹ Yet police personnel often lack technical training, investigative autonomy, or legal empowerment to pursue such crimes effectively. The result is a system ill-prepared for evolving threats.
Unheeded Warnings: Committees, Commissions, and Court Orders
India’s journey toward police reform reads like a history of well-intentioned reports gathering dust. Beginning in the late 1970s, a succession of expert bodies and court directives repeatedly diagnosed the system—and proposed remedies. Yet reforms remain largely unfulfilled.
National Police Commission (1977–81)
The first major expert review of policing post-independence, the National Police Commission (NPC) produced eight volumes of recommendations, urging measures such as insulating police from political pressure, guaranteeing minimum tenures, reforming recruitment and training, and constituting State Security Commissions.¹²
Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000)
In 2000, the Government appointed the Padmanabhaiah Committee, chaired by former Home Secretary K. Padmanabhaiah, to assess police capabilities in the new millennium. It recommended reforms around recruitment standards, standardized training, investigative specialization, beat systems, and establishing non-statutory complaint authorities.¹³
This committee offered a sweeping overhaul of criminal justice. Among its 158 proposals: separation of investigation from law-and-order, creation of forensic and specialized squads, establishment of Police Establishment Boards, victim compensation mechanisms, and creation of State and National Security Commissions.¹⁴
Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007)
The ARC endorsed earlier recommendations and emphasized the need for independent oversight bodies, grievance mechanisms, and depoliticized policing structures, calling out the absence of functional police complaints authorities and institutional insulation.¹⁵
Supreme Court Judgment — Prakash Singh & Others vs. Union of India (2006)
In 1996, Prakash Singh (a retired DGP) filed a public interest litigation demanding implementation of NPC recommendations. In September 2006, the Supreme Court issued seven binding directives, including:
State Security Commission (SSC) to limit political influence.
Merit-based appointment and two-year tenure for the DGP.
Minimum two-year tenure for district-level officers (SPs and SHOs).
Separation of investigation from law-and-order.
Police Establishment Board to regulate transfers and promotions.
Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels.
National Security Commission to oversee appointments in central police organisations.¹⁶
Despite these instructions, implementation remains scant and slanted. While 18 states passed new or amended Acts post-2006, none adhered wholly to the principles laid out by the Court. Only Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka made SSC recommendations binding. Most states still circumvent transfer norms, ignore complaint bodies, and truncate officer tenures to perpetuate political control.¹⁷
Recent Alarming Incidents That Reinforce the Need for Reform
Few events underscore the urgency of reform like the repeated breakdowns in police conduct—even years after landmark recommendations. These incidents reveal not isolated errors, but enduring structural failures.
Sathankulam Custodial Deaths (June 2020)
In Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam town, J. Jayaraj (62) and his son J. Bennix (32) were arrested for allegedly violating lockdown rules. They were taken to the police station, and horribly tortured with batons and stripped naked. Both died within hours. The Madras High Court took suo motu cognisance, ordered a videographed autopsy, and referred the case to the CBI, which arrested multiple officers on murder charges. Still, the trial has dragged on, and justice remains elusive.¹⁸
Five years later, almost in the same region, another case revealed identical patterns—Ajith Kumar was arrested on theft allegations and succumbed to injuries after being beaten outside CCTV range. The Madras High Court reprimanded the police for failing to register an FIR, questioned the legality of the detention, and criticised the lack of transparency and accountability. The SP was merely transferred, not suspended. Once again, third-degree methods led to the victim’s death.¹⁹
In August 2024, a trainee doctor was found murdered inside the R.G. Kar Hospital. The Calcutta High Court flagged serious delays in FIR registration and the Supreme Court had to take suo motu action. A national task force and CBI investigation were instituted after the court criticized the state police’s lapse in managing evidence and engaging promptly with protests and public safety.²⁰
Each case is a painful symbol of how the remaining colonial legal framework still shapes deeply unjust outcomes. These atrocities aren’t accidental—they are engrained in structure and practice.
What Should a New Police Act Look Like?
To break away from the colonial legacy and establish policing that is modern, rights-respecting, and community‑oriented, India needs a comprehensive overhaul of its Police Act. Guided by expert recommendations and global best practices, an updated statute should include the following:
Separation of law & order and investigative functions:
The same officers should not be responsible for both crowd control and crime investigation. Dividing these roles will allow specialization, reduce conflicts of interest, and improve investigative quality. This was a key reform in the Prakash Singh directives and the Model Police Act.²¹
Independent state and district police complaints authorities:
Public grievances and internal misconduct must be addressed by bodies wholly independent of the police — with retired judges, civil society members, and access to meaningful redress. Currently, over two-thirds of states lack functional authorities, and complaint disposal rates are abysmally low.²²
Fixed tenures and transparent postings:
Officers such as DGPs, SPs, and SHOs should have minimum two-year tenures and appointments based on merit, not political influence. Transparent transfer and promotion decisions should be made by Police Establishment Boards.²³
Community Policing & Public Trust Mechanisms:
Effective policing requires partnerships with the community. Models like Police Mitra volunteers, neighborhood policing clusters, and household outreach programs (e.g. Karnataka’s “Mane Mane Police”) foster trust, information-sharing, and collective safety.²⁴
Gender- and Human Rights-Sensitive Policing:
A modern Act must mandate gender sensitivity training, dedicated women’s help desks or battalions, and special teams to handle crimes against women and children. Encouragingly, states like Andhra Pradesh have seen major success with Shakthi Teams, consisting of women-led patrols, resulting in thousands of rescues and convictions in gender-based violence cases.²⁶
Integration of Technology, Training, and Modern Tools:
Digitisation should be integral—automated arrest memos, interoperable justice systems, body cameras, mobile forensic units, and real-time evidence tracking should be mandated. Equally critical are standardized training modules in AI, forensics, communication skills, and community outreach under a unified curriculum.²⁷
Challenges to Reform: What’s Holding It Back?
Despite decades of recommendations, the transformation of India’s policing remains stalled. Four major roadblocks continue to obstruct meaningful change:
Political Resistance:
At the heart of the resistance is the political class’s reluctance to relinquish control. The current policing system—rooted in colonial logic—serves as a powerful tool in the hands of those in power. Chief Ministers, Home Ministers, and local politicians often exercise informal control over police transfers, investigations, and postings. Reforming the system would mean limiting this discretion. It’s unsurprising, then, that many states responded to the Supreme Court’s 2006 Prakash Singh judgment not by implementing its directives, but by passing watered-down laws that maintained the status quo.²⁸
Bureaucratic Inertia:
Even where the judiciary has laid down clear reforms, the bureaucracy has often stalled or diluted them in implementation. Administrative officers, too, have vested interests in retaining influence over the police. For example, provisions requiring fixed tenures for police officers or the establishment of independent complaint authorities have been bypassed through executive orders, re-interpretations, or sheer delay.²⁹
Weak Public Pressure:
Despite periodic outrage following custodial deaths or police excesses, public pressure for structural reform remains sporadic. Police issues are often seen as remote from daily life unless one is personally affected. Unlike in democratic societies where institutional reform is demanded by civil society, media, and bar associations, India has not seen sustained citizen movements for police accountability.³⁰ The 2006 Prakash Singh directives remain unfamiliar to much of the public.
Evasion by States:
Perhaps the most disheartening challenge is the trend of token compliance. Over 18 states have enacted new Police Acts after 2006, but most have been criticized for merely cosmetic changes. For example, Police Complaints Authorities lack independence, often staffed by serving bureaucrats. State Security Commissions—meant to insulate the police from political interference—either do not function or exist in form but not substance.³¹
The Way Forward: Making Reform Non‑Negotiable
If India is to transform policing into a people-centric, accountable, and professional institution, reform is not optional—it is imperative. Below are essential pillars that should guide a new Police Act and its enduring implementation.
Model Police Act & Centre‑State Cooperation:
A modern statute must align across the country, and the Centre should offer a Model Police Act, guiding states to adopt reforms that adhere to the Prakash Singh directives. Supreme Court monitoring in 2008 through the Thomas Committee underscores the necessity of sustained oversight, yet progress stalled due to state-level resistance.
URL: www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/Prakash_Singh_Judgment_SC_directives_2006.pdf
Civil Society & Judicial Engagement:
Civil society organisations such as the Indian Police Foundation and Common Cause have been instrumental in advocating for reform, researching best practices, and litigating for implementation.
URL: www.policefoundationindia.org
URL: www.commoncause.in
Courts, too, remain critical actors—not because implementation is easy, but because they can expose delays and compel accountability through follow‑up mandates. This dual pressure is essential.
Media & Public Awareness Campaigns:
Media and public mobilization can be transformative. Awareness campaigns—whether highlighting systemic failures or successful initiatives like Mission Shakti or community policing schemes—build pressure on the political establishment.
URL: www.wcd.nic.in/schemes/mission-shakti
Potential for Transformative Change:
Concrete steps are already underway: examples include Nashik police forming WhatsApp groups in over 2,200 villages, and Mysuru’s “Mane Mane Police” officers making door-to-door contact to resolve local grievances.
Training upgrades—such as Lucknow’s forensic and digital labs at UPSIFS—equip officers to handle cybercrime and technology-led investigations.
URL: www.upsifs.org
Gender-sensitive programs like Uttar Pradesh’s Mission Shakti have strengthened women’s safety. These models prove reforms can be impactful, scalable, and community-centered.
Conclusion
The Indian police must undergo a fundamental transformation from being a force of coercion to becoming a service grounded in public trust, transparency, and accountability. This is not merely an administrative necessity. It is a moral obligation and a democratic imperative.
The existing model, rooted in the Indian Police Act of 1861, was designed to protect rulers, not serve the ruled. That colonial legacy still echoes in the way law enforcement engages with protests, dissent, and marginalized communities. Even today, the uniform often represents power, not protection; fear, not reassurance.
A reimagined police force must be guided by a new social contract—one where the citizen is at the center. This includes the right to safety without fear, the right to dignity during police interaction, and equality before the law, regardless of caste, class, or gender.
The groundwork for this already exists: expert committee reports, Supreme Court directives, state-level experiments, and citizen voices. What has been missing is the political will and public urgency to implement them sincerely.
It is time we break from the chains of colonial command structures and build a policing system that upholds constitutional values, embraces modern tools and training, and most importantly, respects the people it serves.
Because in a democracy, the legitimacy of the police does not come from the barrel of a gun—but from the trust of the people.
End Notes:
“SC directs registration of FIR in alleged Parbhani custodial death case”, The Times of India, 2024. Link: thetimesofindia.com
“India: Over 1,888 custodial deaths in 2022–2023”, National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) Report. Also cited in The Hindu, 2023. Link: thehindu.com
Sas Law Chambers Blog, “The Police Act of 1861: An In-depth Analysis of Its Origin, Impact, and Modern-Day Relevance”, 2023.
“The Police Act, 1861 was enacted to reorganize the police system in British India after the mutiny of 1857.” — Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, “The Police Act 1861: Why We Need to Replace It”, Link: chri.org
“The structure of the police was made vertical and authoritarian…” — S. Subramanian, “Colonial Legacy of Indian Policing”, The Hindu, August 2020.
“The training and outlook of the police emphasized colonial values…” — R. K. Raghavan, “Policing in India: Past Perspectives”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 34, 2000.
“Independent India retained the 1861 Act…” — Prakash Singh, “India’s Police: Imperatives for Reform”, 2013.
“Almost two-thirds (of officers) said they had faced pressure…” — Devika Prasad & CHRI report summary. Link: reddit.com
“Instances of refusal to file reports…” — Law enforcement in India article.
“The Act imposes no independent oversight…” — The Sordid Story of Colonial Policing in Independent India, The Wire.
“In 2025 alone, Jharkhand reported 340 cyber fraud cases…” — Times of India, “Changing landscape of cybercrime in Jharkhand”.
National Police Commission (1977–81) recommendations. Sources: testbook.com, preparingforias.com
I am Disha Sania, a law graduate from South Calcutta Law College (affiliated with the University of Calcutta), having completed my B.A. LL.B. in 2025. Currently, I am pursuing an LL.M. with a specialization in Data Science and Data Protection Law at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata.
Since losing my mother in 2021, I have been living with my father and taking on many responsibilities at home. These personal challenges have helped shape my resilience and independence, even as I have remained focused on my academic journey.
I deeply value the close-knit circle of friends I have. While I may be reserved at first when meeting new people, I gradually open up and often form lasting connections. I believe in the importance of genuine relationships.
Sincerity and discipline define my approach to academics and other responsibilities. I am always eager to learn new things, which I consider a strength. At the same time, I tend to take longer to complete tasks, as I strive for precision and perfection—something I am working on balancing better.
During my undergraduate years, I developed a strong interest in several core areas of law, especially Constitutional Law, Family Law, Indian Penal Code, BNS, Criminal Procedure Code, BNSS, Intelectual Property Rigts, Information Technology Law and the Law of Evidence. These subjects continue to inspire me as I explore the intersection of law and technology in my LL.M. studies.
My long-term goal is to become a law officer. Outside of academics, I find joy in writing, painting, cooking, travelling, and spending quiet moments in solitude for self-reflection. I also value cleanliness and like to maintain a tidy and orderly living space.
The journey so far has not been without its difficulties, but each step has strengthened my resolve. I am committed to navigating both my professional and personal life with determination, sincerity, and heart.
