Back
A Century-Old Model Rethought: Rajasthan HC Pushes for Structural Police Reform
In a significant judicial intervention aimed at modernizing India's policing framework, the has issued landmark directives to the state government to separate the functions of "" from "." Presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, the Court, in the matter of , has signaled that the prevailing "undifferentiated" model of policing is directly contributing to investigation delays and low conviction rates.
Diagnosis: When Public Visibility Outweighs Precision
The Court noted that for over a century, Indian police stations have operated under a flawed structure where individual officers are burdened with both volatile duties (such as crowd control and VVIP security) and the methodical, time-intensive process of .
Justice Dhand observed that the investigation function, which requires forensic, digital, and legal expertise, is consistently subordinated to the urgent demands of
maintenance.
"When the same Police Officer handles both functions, and if investigation fails in court, or if pendency of investigation is high, he always throws the burden on '
duties',"
the Court noted.
The Three-Unit Blueprint
In response to the Court’s previous orders, the
, presented a comprehensive
"Proposal for Separation of Functions."
The committee recommended a
Three-Unit Model
for every police station:
1.
Law & Order Unit
: Dedicated to patrol, surveillance, and immediate response.
2.
Investigation Unit
: Focused exclusively on evidence collection, preparation, and .
3.
Administrative Unit
: To manage station-level bureaucracy and support tasks.
This structural shift aims to combat the "silent diversion" of investigative staff to routine bandobast or escort duties, which has historically gutted previous reform attempts.
Beyond Personnel: The Urgent Demand for Forensic Modernization
While manpower and structural segregation are critical, the Court highlighted a deeper crisis: the lack of advanced scientific resources. With Rajasthan currently relying on forensic results from other states, justice is often delayed, giving unnecessary procedural advantages to suspects.
Justice Dhand underscored that the state is under a
to provide the infrastructure necessary for a
.
"The time has now come to strengthen and expand the increase the cadre strength of the investigators/staff, so that FSL reports can be received at the earliest,"
the Court stated. The bench has directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to expedite the establishment of modern, well-equipped investigation laboratories within the state.
Key Observations
The High Court’s ruling emphasizes the urgency of these changes:
-
"The Investigation function, which is intellectually demanding and is time-bound, is consistently subordinated to duties, due to its emergent nature and huge public visibility."
-
"The State is under to provide adequate infrastructure for fair and speedy investigation as the delay in investigation, due to lack of adequate infrastructure for investigation, violates the ."
-
"Modern crime cannot be investigated by a generalist Sub-Inspector working alone."
The Path Ahead
By invoking the spirit of the Supreme Court's directives in , the has shifted the focus from policy rhetoric to operational accountability. The state has been tasked with implementing this model across 20 pilot police stations, with a clear warning that further technical and infrastructure deficiencies will not be tolerated. As the legal system moves into an era of digital and forensic-driven crime, this ruling stands as a stern reminder that the machinery of justice is only as strong as the infrastructure that supports it.
The matter is set for further hearing on , where the Court expects a report on the progress of these structural changes.
