The state government’s new security council is pointless in its current form

You praise the firm restraint with which they write. I am with you there, of course;/ They use the snaffle and the bit all right, but where’s the bloody horse?”

Roy Campbell’s remarks on some South African novelists accurately describe the true character of the state government’s security council which the government of Maharashtra set up on December 2, 2008. It was a poor response to the terror attacks of 26/11 and was designed to allay public disquiet about the government’s management of the police force.

The council comprises 25 members. This includes seven ministers and the leader of Opposition, members of the bureaucracy of the state, six representatives from the public, officers of the transport department as well as police forces and of the Bombay Port Trust. The council was not constituted in its entirety, till January 27. The names of the persons to be nominated were not finalised. No meetings were held.

In the public interest litigation, the Bombay High Court remarked that the Council appeared to be “more of a paper-work and hardly a ground reality”. It went on to deliver this sharp rebuke. “In our view, this is not the required urgency with which the state is expected to act and meet the hope of the people of Mumbai that they should be provided security measures in the immediate future.

The establishment of state security commissions was recommended 30 years ago in the Report of the National Police Commission. It indicated a precise focused remit. Maharashtra’s security council is, in contrast, an unwieldy body with a very wide remit. It covers a large field of security perceptions, terrorists’ threats, protection of commercial and official buildings as well as discipline of the police and armed forces and control of various criminal activities including smuggling and other criminal matters.

In a judgment delivered on February 19 by Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar of the Bombay High Court and Justice SA Bobde, they accepted the petitioner’s suggestion for setting up a citizen’s committee even though the government had constituted the state security council. The nature and purpose of the council and of the committee were different. The court remarked “the Security Council is a large body” comprising of ministers holding the most important positions in the Cabinet such as the chief secretary, the home secretary, the principal secretary (finance), industries, the director general officer, commanding-in-chief of the army. All extremely busy people.

There was a communication gap between the anxious citizen and a lethargic government. The high court directed the establishment of a committee with retired Justice BN Srikrishna as chairman and 14 other members. They would include three secretaries to the government, the director general of Police, additional commissioner of police (crimes), president of two Bar Associations of the high court and a government advocate.

This committee will as a citizen’s watchdog perform only recommendatory functions. It will not interfere in the official decision-making process. The judgment speaks of “an interim committee” to suggest measures to overcome the public’s sense of insecurity. Whether a body so constituted can reflect the public’s concerns is debatable.

What is not debatable is that the official body, the state security council, bears not the slightest resemblance to the one the National Police Commission had in mind. On January 27, the council formed six sub-committees on various matters including public awareness and education.

In contrast, the NPC’s commission had teeth. It would not only lay down broad policy guidelines for the police but also evaluate its performance every year and report its findings to the state Legislature. More, it would be a “form of appeal for disposing of representations from any police officer of the rank of superintendent of police and above regarding his being subjected to illegal or irregular orders in the performance of his duties”.

In plain words its object was to protect the police from political interference. It would also serve as an appellate body to decide representations from police officers regarding promotion to the rank of superintendent of police and above. Maharashtra’s security council has no such power. It will in the main review security measures and recommend corrective steps.

It will not protect the police from political interference or lay down guidelines of substance. The National Police Commissions’ state security council was to be set up by an act of the state legislature. Maharashtra’s security council is set up by an executive order and can be dissolved by another order. It is all harness and no horse. It is an eyewash.

The writer is a senior Mumbai based lawyer

AG Noorani/ DNA-Daily News & Analysis Source: 3D Syndication