Indian democracy is often celebrated as the world’s largest and one of its most robust. Yet, its uninterrupted run, barring the brief interruption during the Emergency, should not obscure the fact that it remains a work in progress. Much of the debate on what makes a democracy strong is centred on its four institutional pillars: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the media. However, the police, perhaps the most visible face of the state in the everyday lives of citizens, rarely figure in this conversation. This omission becomes particularly glaring at a time when agitational politics is once again bringing large numbers of people onto the streets to demand redressal of their grievances.

In fact, the police are often the first institution citizens encounter when they assert their rights, confront the state, or seek its protection. Their responsibilities extend well beyond conventional law enforcement. From investigating crime and maintaining law and order to responding to disasters and undertaking community-facing work during emergencies, the police perform a wide range of functions. How they discharge these responsibilities is central not only to the relationship between citizens and the state but also to the quality of democracy itself.

The breadth of these responsibilities also places considerable power in the hands of the police. Their institutional culture and the exercise of their powers have direct consequences for public life and the rights and freedoms of citizens. The exercise of these powers has often come under scrutiny.

The Status of Policing in India Reports (SPIR), however, make some troubling revelations about policing in India. Consider this: 68 per cent of the police personnel surveyed justified the use of torture against people accused of national security crimes, while 55 per cent supported torture for offences like theft, and 22 per cent advocated killing people considered dangerous in police encounters rather than giving them an opportunity to stand trial (SPIR 2025). In addition to the normalisation of these extrajudicial methods, the use of surveillance and the potential intrusion into citizens’ private lives have also been a matter of concern. For instance, one in three government employees surveyed in SPIR 2023 believed that the government can access people’s phones without their knowledge or consent; while 52 per cent of ordinary citizens believed that public CCTV cameras carried a high risk of illegal mass surveillance.

These statistics point to a deeper institutional concern: the continued acceptance of and reliance on coercion, intimidation, and violence as a means of maintaining public order. But this attitude cannot be understood in isolation from the history of policing in India.

The colonial foundations

The colonial administration deployed criminal law to suppress political expression in India and advance its social, political, and economic interests; in the process, it criminalised entire communities. Enforcing these laws required a centrally controlled institution capable of maintaining order, gathering intelligence, and suppressing resistance. The police thus emerged under colonial rule as an instrument of political and social control, with their organisational structure, culture, and collective beliefs shaped by the need to govern subjects and preserve colonial authority.

While attempts at curating this police administration were visible even in the 18th century, political circumstances following the revolt of 1857 significantly shaped the institution. The rebellion deepened British mistrust in the army, and the military character and growing strength of existing police forces raised concerns. The police reforms that flowed from the Police Commission set up in 1860 were therefore driven by political, military, and financial considerations. (Gupta, 1974.)

However, unlike the Metropolitan Police in Britain, the colonial police model drew largely from the Irish Constabulary. Armed, organised along semi-military lines, and placed under the direct control of the colonial government, the Irish model was intended to suppress agrarian unrest and check resistance to British rule. For the British, adopting this model in India provided a much more economical alternative to using troops for routine policing, while allowing troops to be concentrated in garrison towns, under close supervision and discipline. The police served as the eyes and ears of the colonial regime, sufficiently armed to quell minor disturbances. (Arnold, 1976.)

This is also clear from the memorandum that was issued to the Police Commission, which clarified that the police could perform protective and repressive functions and their organisation was to be centralised under the executive. Interestingly, while it emphasised that police duties should be civil rather than military, it also acknowledged that, in the Indian context, the distinction between the two was not always clear. (Gupta, 1974.) This overlap was evident when special forces, like the Malabar Special Police, were set up to suppress uprisings, as well as the Criminal Investigation Department to monitor political leaders during the national movement. (Arnold, 1976.)

The Police Act, 1861, concretised this model, which was characterised by extraordinary powers, subordination to the political executive, and an absolute lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms. Besides serious criminal conduct, the Act made common lapses, including throwing rubbish on the streets, urinating in public, or displaying goods for sale, the subjects of policing, showing the colonial state’s need to control everyday life.

More importantly, the model emphasised accountability to rulers rather than to the community (Mangla & Kapoor, 2024), and the police became a “metaphor for colonial rule” (Singh, 2019). This is precisely what ought to have changed after Independence.

Persistence of the colonial model

The constitutional basis of state authority and consequently the relationship between the citizen and the state changed after Independence. Part III of the Constitution sought to place substantive limits on the exercise of police power. The guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, protection against self-incrimination, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest were intended to protect individual liberty in a citizen’s interaction with law enforcement.

Yet, it did not transform the coercive criminal justice framework inherited from colonial rule, nor did it fundamentally reimagine the institution of the police. The persistence of colonial belief systems, political interference, weak accountability, discriminatory enforcement, and arbitrary exercise of powers continue to raise questions about the nature of policing in India.

As the republic emerged as a constitutional democracy after a long struggle against colonial rule, policing should have been reimagined as public service rather than an instrument of control, meant to assist citizens, uphold constitutional protections and prevent their violation by state and private actors, investigate and prevent crime, and maintain public order. More importantly, the powers and authority vested in the police should have served these purposes, rather than intimidate the very people it was meant to protect.

At a passing-out parade at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad, Telangana, on October 17.
| Photo Credit:
PTI

This may appear to be a philosophical argument, but a fundamental shift in institutional mindset was necessary to change the way the police functioned, engaged with people, and were perceived by the public. This required a rethinking of the administrative structures of the police, the extraordinary powers vested in them, their relationship with communities, and the mechanisms through which they were held accountable. These questions received limited attention in the decades following Independence.

One of the most significant ways in which the colonial orientation persists is in the relationship between the police and the political executive. Political influence over police administration and weak accountability continue to shape the institution, much as they did under colonial rule.

Political interference, corruption, and accountability

Political influence over police administration is often exercised through transfers and postings. While these are necessary aspects of police administration, their use as rewards or punishments, or to further political or personal interests, undermines the force’s professional autonomy. Similarly, corruption and weak systems of accountability erode public trust.

These concerns are not new. The National Police Commission’s Third Report (1980) documented bribery in recruitment and other forms of corruption, including extortion, payments extracted from shopkeepers, and fabrication of evidence. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission (1993) similarly noted arbitrary transfers, nepotism, and corruption in postings and other service matters. The persistence of these problems led the Supreme Court, in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), to issue directions aimed at reducing political interference and strengthening professional independence and accountability. However, two decades later, the same concerns about political influence, corruption, and accountability remain.

Between 2011 and 2022, not a single police officer was convicted in connection with the 1,107 deaths recorded in police custody (SPIR 2025). More recently, a DIG in the Punjab Police was arrested in an alleged bribery case. Around the same time, the deaths of an IPS officer and an assistant sub-inspector in Haryana brought into focus allegations of corruption, caste discrimination, favouritism in postings, and misuse of authority within the police hierarchy. Taken together, these incidents illustrate how corruption and lack of accountability have persisted.

Caste discrimination and communal prejudice

Alongside, the prevalence of social prejudice within the police has been a persistent concern. It has led to the over-criminalisation of marginalised communities. For instance, research in Mumbai found that arrests for cannabis consumption under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, overwhelmingly targeted street dwellers and young labourers working for daily wages (VCLP, 2020). Similarly, a study of wildlife policing in Madhya Pradesh found that 78 per cent of those accused in cases recorded by the forest department belonged to oppressed caste communities (CJAP, 2022).

Such social prejudice has manifested as police inaction and even complicity during violence against marginalised communities. The Commission of Inquiry investigating the Bhagalpur riots of 1989 documented the local police’s failure to prevent violence as well as instances of their active participation in facilitating it. The Justice Srikrishna Commission, which investigated the 1992 Mumbai riots, also highlighted communal bias within the force and recorded instances of police personnel participating in the violence.

These concerns have persisted beyond individual episodes of communal violence. The Sachar Committee formed in 2005, in its report on the social, economic, and educational status of Muslims in India submitted in November 2006, highlighted police high-handedness, over-policing in Muslim localities, and arbitrary detentions.

Preventive detention

Substantive and procedural criminal laws confer significant enforcement powers on the police, including those of arrest, search, and seizure. One of the most concerning of these powers, and a hallmark of colonial policing, is the power to detain a person preventively. That this power is expressly recognised by the Constitution, despite its history as an instrument of colonial repression, is a significant constitutional contradiction. Preventive detention in colonial times was used to disrupt political mobilisation, detain individuals without trial, and restrict freedom of expression.

Now, nearly 80 years after Independence, preventive detention remains a significant challenge against the constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process. It preserves extraordinary executive discretion and sustains a relationship between the police and citizens that is shaped by the threat of detention rather than trust.

The power extends beyond special laws. Preventive arrests are also allowed under ordinary criminal procedure, by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Almost 93 lakh preventive arrests in 2024, compared with 45 lakh arrests for actual offences, show how preventive detention remains a core feature of everyday policing. (NCRB, 2024.)

Reimagining policing

There is a need for a fundamental shift in how the police as an institution are understood and their power is exercised. This must begin by recognising that the police interact far more frequently with ordinary citizens going about their daily lives than with criminals. Even if all 93 lakh preventive arrests made in 2024 were lawful, they would still represent less than 1 per cent of India’s population. Policing cannot, therefore, proceed on an assumption of criminality, with intimidation and force as its default response.

Policing must be reimagined as a public service rooted in the community rather than as a tool in the hands of the political executive. This requires revisiting internal administrative structures, curbing political interference, and strengthening accountability and transparency. It also requires an institutional culture grounded in dignity, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

It is also important to revisit the broad powers vested in the police and the stringent provisions of the criminal justice system, both of which have a chilling effect on individual rights and freedoms. While retaining the powers essential to effective policing is important, their exercise must not be allowed to circumvent due process, and they must be periodically tested against necessity and proportionality.

On vigilance duty during rehearsals for the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, a file photograph. The police are often the first institution citizens encounter when they assert their rights.
| Photo Credit:
Getty Images

Until these principles inform reforms at every level, the police force cannot truly become a people’s force. Recruitment should promote diversity and equal opportunity; personnel must be regularly trained to uphold fundamental freedoms and engage with citizens fairly; while supervision and accountability mechanisms should ensure that abuse of power has consequences.

Finally, the success of any reform must be measured by how citizens experience the police in their everyday interactions. This is perhaps the most important consideration at a time when opposition parties and young people with no political affiliation are confronting the police on the streets, having found themselves voiceless in other democratic forums. The use of the police as an instrument of state oppression is hardly new; governments across the political spectrum have been guilty of it. What is unprecedented, however, is that the voices on the streets are demanding not merely a change of regime but a recoding of the DNA of power, which finds expression in myriad forms. Such a movement can neither be policed nor arrested by force.

Naveed is Senior Resident Fellow and Lead with the Crime and Punishment Team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

References:

1. Arnold, David (1976). “The Police and Colonial Control in South India”, Social Scientist, Volume 4, No. 12, pp 3-16.

2. Gupta, Anandswaroop (1979). Crime and Police in India, Sahitya Bhavan.

3. Mangla, Akshay and Vineet Kapoor (2024): “The Police in India”, Institutional Roots of India’s Security Policy, Milan Vaishnav (ed.), first edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 245–278.

4. Singh, Gagan Preet (2019): “Police–Public Relations in Colonial India”, History Compass, Volume 17, No. 11, e12595.

5. Common Cause & Lokniti-CSDS (2021): Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2021.

6. Common Cause & Lokniti-CSDS (2025): Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2025.

7. Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (2022): Wildlife Policing: The Reign of Criminalization in the Forests of Madhya Pradesh.

8. Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India (2006): Prime Minister’s High Level Committee Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India (Sachar Committee Report).

9. National Crime Records Bureau (2024): Crime in India 2024.

10. Singhal, Neha, and N.M. Ahmad (2020): Criminalisation Leads To Exploitation: The Mumbai Story No One Knows About. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

11. Government of India (1980): Third Report of the National Police Commission.

12. Report of the Justice Srikrishna Commission Appointed for Inquiry into the Riots at Mumbai During December 1992 and January 1993, Volumes I & II, 1998.

Also Read | Error of judgment