“Without Police Integrity, Democracy Is in Jeopardy”: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Police Reforms to Combat Complacency, Political Interference, and Erosion of Rule of Law
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja issued extensive directions aimed at overhauling the police administration in the state. The directives, issued on 21 April 2025, addressed persistent structural and functional issues affecting police efficiency, accountability, and integrity. The court passed a detailed judgment in continuation of earlier proceedings concerning systemic lapses in police functioning, particularly related to criminal justice administration, transfer policies, and political interference.
The court, taking note of a previous inquiry and compliance report, ordered strict administrative and policy measures. Among the significant directions were: issuance of show cause notices to errant officers, statewide police cadre reforms, establishment of modern units and infrastructure, compliance with Supreme Court judgements, and reference to earlier guidelines such as those passed in the case of Arun Kumar Bhadoria vs State of Uttarakhand.
The matter arose from a criminal writ petition that flagged severe concerns over police complacency and failure to ensure justice in a specific case. In compliance with an earlier court order dated 7 April 2025, the State submitted instructions dated 17 April 2025 indicating that, based on an inquiry conducted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Patial, IPS, show cause notice would be issued to Mr. Firoj Khan, HPPS, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court had previously remarked in an order dated 23 October 2024 that many police officers had been found to be "wanton and rather complacent" and ordered appropriate legal action.
The judgment discussed in detail the structural issues in the police system, quoting judicial and academic authorities to support its stance. It quoted Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who stated: "If the investigative process fails, if the police presence to guard Law and Order is not functionally successful, the adjudicatory apparatus collapses..." Similar concerns were raised by Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon, who outlined public dissatisfaction with police due to corruption, selective enforcement, abuse of rights, and inefficiency.
The court acknowledged that although not all police personnel are culpable, systemic rot needed redressal. It recorded: "It is not the intention of the Court to prosper evidence or argument to prove or disprove any of above perception. However, no honest person within or outside the police could totally deny the aforementioned causes."
The judgment reviewed and criticized the archaic framework of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and advocated modernization and restructuring. The court noted that present-day challenges including cybercrime, organized crime, and drug trafficking necessitated a professional, adequately staffed, and trained police force.
The Bench made exhaustive remarks on institutional failings, stating that "many of the police official(s)/officer(s) have been found to be complacent or wanton in ensuring that the accused are not brought to justice." It observed that lack of integrity and accountability had compromised the criminal justice system. In its observations, the court drew from multiple sources, stating:
- "The police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it."
- "The police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary..."
- "The police shall always place duty before self, should remain calm and good humoured whatever be the danger or provocation and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others."
The court referred to earlier reform efforts including recommendations by the Law Commission (Report No. 239) and Supreme Court judgements in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, and Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006, 2019). It also drew comparisons with reforms mandated by the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 48 of 2017.
Among the key observations, the court recorded those police leadership often fails to discipline lower officials, resulting in "indifference or connivance of seniors". The training system was critiqued for being outdated, focusing on "muscle than on the mind" and lacking priority on human rights. It was noted that: "If the leadership itself is doubtful about the imperatives of human right in policing... it is pointless to expect change in the behaviour of ordinary Sub-Inspector and Constable."
The Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a series of binding directions concerning urgent reforms required in the police system. The Court recorded that it is essential for the State to consider converting all police posts, including NGO Grade-II officers, from district cadre to state cadre. Pending such a decision, the Court permitted the police department to transfer NGOs Grade-II to Vigilance, CID, TTR, Ranger Offices, CTS, Police Headquarters, or battalions anywhere within the State.
In relation to postings in newly created Police Districts like Baddi, Nurpur, and Dehra, the Court clarified that "even though the State may have declared Police Districts Baddi, Nurpur, and Dehra as independent Police Districts for law and order purposes, for the purposes of postings and transfers, they would be treated as belonging to their respective revenue districts, Solan and Kangra." It was further observed that NGO Grade-II officers should not be confined to a small group of police stations but should rotate throughout the corresponding revenue district to prevent stagnation and localized influence.
The Court also noted that the posting of HPS officers in IPS cadre posts, particularly SP Sirmour and SP Baddi, was in violation of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, specifically Rules 8 and 9. It emphasized that cadre posts must be filled by cadre officers and recorded that the present practice of appointing non-IPS officers to IPS posts requires urgent correction.
It was directed that "no police official or officer should be posted in his sub-division except under exceptional circumstances, and even then, only with reasons recorded in the order." Furthermore, the Court mandated that no police officer should remain posted in one station for more than three years, and officers posted in border areas should have a maximum tenure of two years, with an instruction that after serving in a border district, they should not be posted immediately to another border district.
The Court allowed the State to post constables and NGOs into specialized constabularies, including cybercrime, vigilance, intelligence, narcotics, and SDRF units, recognizing the urgent need for modern policing capabilities.
Additional directives included the creation of a dedicated highway patrol wing under each District Superintendent of Police, strengthening the Emergency Response Support System (ERSS-112) by allocating additional vehicles across districts, notifying certain police officers as Special Executive Magistrates under Section 15 of BNSS, revising Police Rules to reflect technological and procedural advancements, and setting up special NDPS courts to expedite narcotics-related prosecutions.
The Court highlighted the necessity of establishing Mobile Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs) in every district, augmenting the fleet strength for police mobility and emergency responses, improving police housing infrastructure, strengthening intelligence gathering through CID and Security Branch restructuring, and ensuring the effective implementation of the Uttarakhand High Court's directives issued in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 48 of 2017.
Finally, the Court ordered that compliance with the directions be placed before it on the next date of hearing, fixed for 3rd June 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manik Sethi, proxy counsel.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General; Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General; Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
Case Title: Ravina v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr.WP No. 12/2024
Bench: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja
[Read/Download order]
