Top-heavy police doesn’t guarantee efficiency

The creation of the post of Special Commissioner in Brihanmumbai (Greater Mumbai) Police has caused a controversy. Among Mumbai’s former commissioners of police, Julio Ribeiro has criticised the move, saying that it virtually bifurcates the powers in the apex management structure, thereby weakening the authority of the Commissioner, while MN Singh has welcomed it, stating that it would lead to better supervision on the lines of the Special Commissioner in charge of the Special Cell of the New Delhi Police.

Advertisement

It needs to be examined whether the creation of posts of senior ranks in the police has any correlation with the efficiency or delivery of service to the public.

In the 1970s, when I was a Deputy Commissioner in the Bombay Police, the rank of the Commissioner of Police was only that of a Deputy Inspector General (DIG). The entire landmass of the present Mumbai Police jurisdiction till Mulund-Dahisar was supervised by only four zonal deputy commissioners (DCP). Other DCP-rank officers supervised special wings like the Special Branch, Crime Branch, Armed Forces — in all, only 13.

Now, Mumbai has one commissioner, four joint commissioners, 11 additional commissioners and nearly 41 DCPs. The justification cited has been an increased population.

The Brihanmumbai Police (Greater Bombay Police or GBP) is modelled after the London Metropolitan Police (MET), also known as ‘Scotland Yard’ because its back entrance faces the Great Scotland Yard, a street in St James district of Westminster where there was a mediaeval palace that housed the Scottish royalty.

The MET was created in 1829. Its authority does not include the ‘City of London Police’ (CLP), established in 1839 to manage the policing of a tiny business and financial district as well as the Middle and Inner Temples (Inns of Court), which has only 8,000 permanent residents but nearly 5 lakh daily visitors. The CLP has a strength of only 1,355.

Till the creation of Maharashtra state in 1961, the GBP had almost the same designations of supervisory officers like sergeants (present assistant police inspectors or APIs) and superintendents (ACPs) as the MET even now. The Bombay Police had 23,000 men in the 1970s, 38,000 in the 1990s when it became the Mumbai Police and more than 45,000 after 2000.

As against this, the population of the London Metropolitan Region in the 1970s was 74.38 lakh, about 90 lakh in 2019 and is expected to touch 94 lakh by 2030. The total strength of police officers at the MET is currently 44,000. It was 27,000 in 1984 and 33,360 in 2010.

The remarkable feature of MET’s apex management is that the number of supervisory officers has not changed at all over the years. It always had only one commissioner, one deputy commissioner (DC) and three assistant commissioners (AC). One more post of AC was added for the 2012 London Olympics.

How could they manage with so few senior officers? The main difference between Scotland Yard and the Brihanmumbai Police is empowerment. In the UK, all police officers from the rank of constable to the commissioner of police have the same powers of arrest under the Police Act of 1996. Section 30 of the Police Act 1996 states that “a member of a police force shall have all powers and privileges of a Constable throughout England and Wales and the adjacent United Kingdom waters.” The basic police powers of arrest and search of a constable are identical to those of a senior officer, including the chief constable who is equivalent to our director general of police. Hence, the law views them as equal.

If the powers are equal, where is the need for somebody else’s supervision? The only difference between a lower police officer and his seniors in London is that a senior is given additional administrative powers to authorise specific police actions as below:

In England and Wales, these powers include authorising continued detention of up to 24 hours of a person arrested for an offence and brought to the police station (granted to sergeants and above at designated police stations), approving house searches under Section 18(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Granted to inspectors and above), extending detention to 36 hours (granted to superintendents) and extending bail to three months (also to superintendents). More particularly, these powers can be exercised even when they are off duty.

In India, the conditions are not the same and police powers are not delegated so widely as in the UK, where every police officer starts as a constable. Still, is it necessary to have such a cumbersome and wasteful top-heavy structure for supervision? Admittedly, a senior inspector of police in a police station in Mumbai is as experienced and as competent as his counterpart in the UK.

Is it necessary for him to be subjected to supervision from his ACP, DCP, additional commissioner, joint commissioner and, now, special commissioner before the ultimate power centre, ie the commissioner, is satisfied that enough supervision is done? What initiative will a senior inspector show when he knows that his decision would be countermanded by any of his six-level upper hierarchy? He will merely be a rubber stamp.

Why is the police image among the public so unfavourable all over India despite close supervision of such a long hierarchical ladder? How is it that in India, the majority of the public finds it difficult to get access to the police station despite such a supervisory structure? That is the main difference between our police and that of the UK.

Views are personal