Traditionally DC has been entrusted with the ultimate responsibility of maintaining peaceful L&O in a district. In 1861 the police act creates a reporting relationship between DC and SP. It was commented for law go to courts, for order got to police, for L&O come to us. This was true pre-1947 when DC performed both executive magistracy and judicial magistracy. But post-1947, a separate hierarchy of district judges have come up. Therefore DC looks after only executive magistracy. E.g power to impose section 144, issue arms licenses. Inspection of Jails and other activities in which he is assisted by District police headed by SP who works closely with DC. Though Dc and SP have a reporting relationship DC is not expected to interfere in day to day working of police machinery which is SP's domain. SP is also accountable to his own police h'y which ultimately ends at DG at state level. Therefore to some extent, it is a violation of unity of commands. However, this relationship may lead to problems.
- Police traditionally oppose reporting relationship with DC stating the 1861 act as colonial legacy
- Generalist(DC) vs Specialist(SP)
- Politicisation - SP
- No consensus w.r.t use of force and quantum
- Personality clashes
1861 act is a colonial legacy and since SP is a specialist different national police commission had consistently advocated changing over to SP lead L&O system in the district. They draw parallel with a commissioned system in metros where police commissioner is ultimately responsible for L&O. This overlooks the fact that a police commissioner is a highly experienced officer ( 25-30 years). Who has to deal with diverse situation quickly. While is a typical district SP is a rookie and the nature of L&O requires combined efforts of SP and DC. It is not possible to separate regulatory admin from development admin. Both impact and influence each other. Also, L&O management is not just about using force, it requires root cause analysis and authority to diffuse crisis and effectively redress grievances. Therefore commissions like 2nd ARC have suggested status quo between SP and DC but should operate more as colleagues.
Contemporary problems in Law and Order
- Complex L&O - Changing nature of crimes
- Pressure on admin to deliver quick results
- Change in the scale of violence
- Civil Society vigilantism - mob justice
- Balancing human rights and national security consideration
- Political pressure
- Impact of technology - presence of instant reporting mechanism
- Waiting for orders syndrome
- Cynical attitude of society towards constructive engagement
- Increasing horizontal social, micro, control and accountability
- Power of media - esp. social media
- Problems of communal riot in a fragmented society with historic fault lines - uneven development
- Lack of employment opportunities
- Politicization
- Exploitation for electoral gains - triggers social unrest. Ideally, it requires concerted efforts from stakeholders (everyone) - DC and SP will have to create consensus and restore normalcy and peace esp. by persuading and cultivating key decision-makers / opinion influences of civil society
- Political executive too should play a constructive role in diffusing tensions and avoid polarization
- Internal security and external security are intricately linked esp. in border areas, disturbed regions and LMN affected areas.
Read more in Law and Order Administration