Delhi: Police
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Who controls Delhi Police?
Before 1947, Delhi Police was a part of Punjab Police
In 1948, it got an IGP — D W Mehra
The post of commissioner of police was instituted in 1978. J N Chaturvedi was the first CP
Earlier, the IGP reported to the Delhi chief secretary. Now, the CP reports to the lieutenant governor of National Capital Territory
The reporting structure of Delhi Police is complex. MHA exercises overarching control But the Union home secretary and LG jointly supervise the force
The background
Solution May Lie In Devolving Some Powers To State
Manoj Mitta | TNN
New Delhi: Ever since the Delhi assembly came into existence in 1993, both Congres and BJP have been clamouring for full statehood for the national capital. Arvind Kejriwal’s dharna and his partial success on Tuesday in pushing the Centre to yield to some of his demands against the police have served to highlight a constitutional anomaly about Delhi.
In their political rhetoric, Congres, BJP and AAP all agree on doing away with the anomaly of Delhi Police being outside the administrative control of the capital’s elected government.
This lacuna in the jurisdiction of the national capital’s government is why Delhi is not considered a state despite having an assembly and a CM. The stalemate has remained unresolved despite different models available in other national capitals to balance democratic and security exigencies (see graphic).
Unlike its counterparts in states, the Delhi assembly is barred by Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution from making laws on three of the 66 state list entries. The three subjects that do not apply to the Delhi assembly — and therefore the Delhi government — are Entries 1, 2 and 18 dealing with public order, police and land.
The sensitivity of the situation can be gauged from the fact that even when the NDA government made an abortive bid in 2003 to confer statehood on Delhi, the Bill introduced by L K Advani steered clear of Entries 1 and 2 that deal with the city’s security.
As a corollary, the Delhi Police commissioner reports to the Lt Governor, who in turn discharges functions relating to public order and police with Union home ministry’s concurrence. This means that when there is a law and order breakdown, the Delhi CM can only demand action against errant police officials, as Kejriwal did through his dharna. However grave the provocation, the CM cannot suspend or transfer any policeman.
Tthe peculiarity of Delhi is evident from the special exemption enjoyed by Lutyens Delhi, the seat of India’s government, from the constitutional obligation of having an elected municipality. In this prime area where Kejriwal held his dharna and which constitutes 3% of Delhi, the centre owns most of the land and 80% of buildings. Hence, the conventional pattern of representative local self-government was found unworkable. The New Delhi Municipal Council is essentially nominated by the Union government.
The larger context in which the Delhi government took to the streets was the failure across the country to implement the 2006 SC judgment mandating reforms to insulate police from illegal political interference and to make them accountable to independent watchdog bodies. While most states have disregarded the verdict, the Centre has not so far enacted a fresh law which would have introduced police reforms in Delhi. This is despite a model Bill proposed by the Soli Sorabjee Committee in 2006.
History: how Delhi city lost control over its police
Centre firmed its grip on cops with orders, not laws
Abhinav Garg TNN The Times of India
Arvind Kejriwal is not the first chief minister of Delhi to demand the state’s control over its police. The Centre’s first move to take away much of the city’s influence over Delhi Police in 1996 drew noisy protests from the BJP government at the time. The Sheila Dikshit government was also vociferous in demanding control over the 85,000-strong force but meekly submitted to the Centre’s 2011 decision to deprive it of all remaining powers. TOI traces the history of this ‘takeover’ through a trail of documents accessed from the Delhi government.
The papers show that until 2011, the lieutenant governor and the city government’s finance department had a say in police’s budgetary allocation. But in early 2011, the home ministry unilaterally attached police’s budget to its grants. It also blamed the state’s public works department (PWD) for dragging projects and ordered that a PSU like NBCC be awarded police-related construction work. The ministry took these decisions unilaterally through executive orders, without much discussion with the local government and the Centre.
Early in 1996, the MHA had taken away Delhi Police’s budget from the city government and laid down modalities for its separate accounting. It reshuffled existing arrangements by making Delhi administration’s accountants—maintaining Delhi Police accounts—report to it. The state government responded with a note. Principal secretary (finance), P S Baidwan, pushed for keeping Delhi government’s stake in finalizing the police budget saying it is “essential to monitor the expenditure and also it will help in scrutinizing various proposals in their proper perspective”. He pointed out that Delhi Police was not created under powers conferred in the ‘union’ list of subjects, unlike CRPF or BSF, but owed its existence to a schedule in the ‘state’ list, and hence should not be controlled by MHA. The correct constitutional position, he said, would be “for MHA to provide funds to the LG to administer the reserved items within his delegated powers”.
The note prompted then chief secretary P V Jaikrishnan to issue an office order in September 1996 forming a ‘standing finance committee’ with the police commissioner and the finance secretary as members for Delhi Police’s budget, maintaining the Delhi administration’s influence in police affairs. The matter was given a quiet burial with MHA acknowledging Jaikrishnan’s order.
For the next 15 years, the tenuous arrangement held firm, with the LG and Delhi government both having a say in police proposals, expenditure, modernization plans, etc. However, in July 2011 the MHA brought police’s pay and accounts under its chief controller of accounts. Delhi’s finance department again protested and sought a review but MHA succeeded in gaining full control. In a meeting chaired by then joint secretary (UT) K K Pathak, the ministry conveyed to the state government its decision to take control of the police budget.
By April 2012, the MHA ended Delhi government’s remaining influence. The state would no longer approve police modernization projects nor sanction money for them. Instead, MHA would be the sole arbiter for technical and administrative approvals.
Delhi’s cabinet minister Manish Sisodia accused the Centre of systematically conspiring to take full control of Delhi Police in the past 2-3 years. “Despite being included in the state list, Delhi Police has been taken over by MHA. For this, an amendment in the Constitution of India is required but it has been effected by executive orders by joint secretary-level officers. The illegality was possible because there were Congres governments at the Centre and in Delhi. We demand a new Delhi Police Act to place police under the state government’s full control,”
