The application contends that till date, the guidelines issued in the 2006 Prakash Singh judgment have not been effectively and completely implemented.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran and Advocate Archana Pathak Dave have moved an application before the Supreme Court making recommendations for effective implementation of the Court's guidelines pertaining to police reforms in Prakash Singh & Ors v. Union Of India.
The application contends that till date, the guidelines issued in the 2006 Prakash Singh judgment have not been effectively and completely implemented.
Ramachandran and Dave, both amici curiae in the case, have pointed out in the application that either the state governments have not brought in the requisite legislation for police reforms, or the legislation passed in this regard are under challenge before the courts.
The purpose of filing this application, it is said, is to eliminate the need for continuously filing applications when state-specific situations arise.
The guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh were to be followed till appropriate legislation was brought in. These guidelines touched upon separation of law and order and investigation wings of the police, fixing of minimum tenure of personnel, setting up of Police Complaints Authority, etc.
As such, for effective and speedy implementation of these guidelines, the amici have the following suggestions:
The jurisdictional High Courts constitute dedicated Benches to determine the extent to which compliance by executive orders has been made by the concerned States/UTs. For this purpose, the High Courts would have to take the assistance of an Amicus Curiae and also appoint Expert Committees to verify compliance at the ground level. The High Courts may be requested to complete the exercise of determining compliance within a period of six months.
Individual applications pertaining to the States/UTs concerned may be dealt with by the said Benches in keeping with the letter and spirit of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated 22.9.2006.
The application adds that another aspect to consider is the notification of 2014, through which the IPS (Cadre) Amendment Rules 2014 were issued. When a contempt plea was filed in this regard, the Supreme Court had prima facie observed that these Rules were contrary to the guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh. The application says,
"On a contempt petition moved by the Petitioner (Contempt Petition No 235/2014) this Hon’ble Court has directed that Rule 7 of the said Rules which provides for the setting up of a Civil Services Board be not acted upon pending reconsideration by the Union of India. The Court recorded its prima facie view that the said Rule is not in consonance with the judgment in Prakash Singh’s Case."
Having made these suggestions, the amici have sought for an early date to be fixed for hearing and adjudicating the matter in which the constitutional validity of the concerned state legislations is involved. A date for hearing of the contempt plea which brings forth the issue pertaining to the IPS (cadre) Amendment Rules is also sought in the application.
Read Application:
