In May 2008, the Supreme Court of India laid down six parameters to make the police effective, accountable and insulated from political interference and set up a monitoring committee to ensure that states implement police reforms. Which one of the following is not a directive of the apex court in this regard ?
[amp_mcq option1=”Setting up of a state security commission in every state to ensure that the state government did not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police” option2=”Selection of state’s director general of police would be from “amongst the three senior most officers”” option3=”Fixing a minimum tenure of five years for police officers on operational posts unless they face disciplinary proceedings or were convicted in a criminal offence” option4=”Setting up a separate investigation police force to ensure that criminal are prosecuted effectively” correct=”option3″]
1. Setting up a State Security Commission (SSC) in each state (Option A is correct).
2. Selecting the DGP through a merit-based process from a panel of three senior officers and giving them a minimum tenure of **two** years (Option B is correct, but the tenure mentioned in C is incorrect).
3. Ensuring a minimum tenure of **two** years for other police officers on operational duties (Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer) (Option C states five years, which is incorrect).
4. Separating the investigation and law & order functions of the police (Option D is a correct directive).
5. Setting up Police Establishment Boards (PEB) for transfers, postings, etc.
6. Setting up Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) at state and district levels.
The statement that specifies a minimum tenure of *five* years for police officers on operational posts is incorrect; the Supreme Court mandated a minimum tenure of two years.
– Directives included establishing commissions/boards/authorities and ensuring minimum tenure for officers.
– The minimum tenure mandated for officers on operational posts was two years, not five years.