http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996

PETITIONER:
Prakash Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT:
Union of India and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/09/2006

BENCH:
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.

Considering the far reaching changes that had taken

place in the country after the enactment of the Indian Police
Act, 1861 and absence of any comprehensive review at the
national level of the police system after independence despite
radical changes in the political, social and economic situation
in the country, the Government of India, on 15th November,
1977, appointed a National Police Commission (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Commission’). The commission was
appointed for fresh examination of the role and performance of
the police both as a law enforcing agency and as an institution
to protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the
Constitution.
The terms and reference of the Commission were wide
ranging. The terms of reference, inter alia, required the
Commission to redefine the role, duties, powers and
responsibilities of the police with special reference to
prevention and control of crime and maintenance of public
order, evaluate the performance of the system, identify the
basic weaknesses or inadequacies, examine if any changes
necessary in the method of administration, disciplinary control
and accountability, inquire into the system of investigation
and prosecution, the reasons for delay and failure and suggest
how the system may be modified or changed and made
efficient, scientific and consistent with human dignity,
examine the nature and extent of the special responsibilities of
the police towards the weaker sections of the community and
suggest steps and to ensure prompt action on their complaints
for the safeguard of their rights and interests. The
Commission was required to recommend measures and
institutional arrangements to prevent misuse of powers by the
police, by administrative or executive instructions, political or
other pressures or oral orders of any type, which are contrary
to law, for the quick and impartial inquiry of public complaints
made against the police about any misuse of police powers.
The Chairman of the Commission was a renowned and highly
reputed former Governor. A retired High Court Judge, two
former Inspector Generals of Police and a Professor of TATA
Institute of Special Sciences were members with the Director,
CBI as a full time Member Secretary.
The Commission examined all issues in depth, in period
of about three and a half years during which it conducted
extensive exercise through analytical studies and research of
variety of steps combined with an assessment and
appreciation of actual field conditions. Various study groups
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
comprising of prominent public men, Senior Administrators,
Police Officers and eminent academicians were set up.
Various seminars held, research studies conducted, meetings
and discussions held with the Governors, Chief Ministers,
Inspector Generals of Police, State Inspector Generals of Police
and Heads of Police organizations. The Commission submitted
its first report in February 1979, second in August 1979, three
reports each in the years 1980 and 1981 including the final
report in May 1981.
In its first report, the Commission first dealt with the
modalities for inquiry into complaints of police misconduct in
a manner which will carry credibility and satisfaction to the
public regarding their fairness and impartiality and
rectification of serious deficiencies which militate against their
functioning efficiently to public satisfaction and advised the
Government for expeditious examination of recommendations
for immediate implementation. The Commission observed that
increasing crime, rising population, growing pressure of living
accommodation, particularly, in urban areas, violent
outbursts in the wake of demonstrations and agitations
arising from labour disputes, the agrarian unrest, problems
and difficulties of students, political activities including the
cult of extremists, enforcement of economic and social
legislation etc. have all added new dimensions to police tasks
in the country and tended to bring the police in confrontation
with the public much more frequently than ever before. The
basic and fundamental problem regarding police taken note of
was as to how to make them functional as an efficient and
impartial law enforcement agency fully motivated and guided
by the objectives of service to the public at large, upholding
the constitutional rights and liberty of the people. Various
recommendations were made.
In the second report, it was noticed that the crux of the
police reform is to secure professional independence for the
police to function truly and efficiently as an impartial agent of
the law of the land and, at the same time, to enable the
Government to oversee the police performance to ensure its
conformity to the law. A supervisory mechanism without
scope for illegal, irregular or mala fide interference with police
functions has to be devised. It was earnestly hoped that the
Government would examine and publish the report
expeditiously so that the process for implementation of various
recommendations made therein could start right away. The
report, inter alia, noticed the phenomenon of frequent and
indiscriminate transfers ordered on political considerations as
also other unhealthy influences and pressures brought to bear
on police and, inter alia, recommended for the Chief of Police
in a State, statutory tenure of office by including it in a
specific provision in the Police Act itself and also
recommended the preparation of a panel of IPS officers for
posting as Chiefs of Police in States. The report also
recommended the constitution of Statutory Commission in
each State the function of which shall include laying down
broad policy guidelines and directions for the performance of
preventive task and service oriented functions by the police
and also functioning as a forum 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.
With the 8th and final report, certain basic reforms for the
effective functioning of the police to enable it to promote the
dynamic role of law and to render impartial service to the
people were recommended and a draft new Police Act
incorporating the recommendations was annexed as an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
appendix.
When the recommendations of National Police
Commission were not implemented, for whatever reasons or
compulsions, and they met the same fate as the
recommendations of many other Commissions, this petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed about 10
years back, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to
Government of India to frame a new Police Act on the lines of
the model Act drafted by the Commission in order to ensure
that the police is made accountable essentially and primarily
to the law of the land and the people.
The first writ petitioner is known for his outstanding
contribution as a Police Officer and in recognition of his
outstanding contribution, he was awarded the "Padma Shri" in
1991. He is a retired officer of Indian Police Service and
served in various States for three and a half decades. He was
Director General of Police of Assam and Uttar Pradesh besides
the Border Security Force. The second petitioner also held
various high positions in police. The third petitioner \026
Common cause is an organization which has brought before
this Court and High Courts various issues of public interest.
The first two petitioners have personal knowledge of the
working of the police and also problems of the people.
It has been averred in the petition that the violation of
fundamental and human rights of the citizens are generally in
the nature of non-enforcement and discriminatory application
of the laws so that those having clout are not held accountable
even for blatant violations of laws and, in any case, not
brought to justice for the direct violations of the rights of
citizens in the form of unauthorized detentions, torture,
harassment, fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecutions
etc. The petition sets out certain glaring examples of police
inaction. According to the petitioners, the present distortions
and aberrations in the functioning of the police have their
roots in the Police Act of 1861, structure and organization of
police having basically remained unchanged all these years.
The petition sets out the historical background giving
reasons why the police functioning has caused so much
disenchantment and dissatisfaction. It also sets out
recommendations of various Committees which were never
implemented. Since the misuse and abuse of police has
reduced it to the status of a mere tool in the hands of
unscrupulous masters and in the process, it has caused
serious violations of the rights of the people, it is contended
that there is immediate need to re-define the scope and
functions of police, and provide for its accountability to the
law of the land, and implement the core recommendations of
the National Police Commission. The petition refers to a
research paper ’Political and Administrative Manipulation of
the Police’ published in 1979 by Bureau of Police Research
and Development, warning that excessive control of the
political executive and its principal advisers over the police
has the inherent danger of making the police a tool for
subverting the process of law, promoting the growth of
authoritarianism, and shaking the very foundations of
democracy.
The commitment, devotion and accountability of the
police has to be only to the Rule of Law. The supervision and
control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves
the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and
position of any person while investigating a crime or taking
preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented,
its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where
on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the
Rule of Law becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
brought to book and appropriate action taken without any
delay.
The petitioners seek that Union of India be directed to re-
define the role and functions of the police and frame a new
Police Act on the lines of the model Act drafted by the National
Police Commission in order to ensure that the police is made
accountable essentially and primarily to the law of the land
and the people. Directions are also sought against the Union
of India and State Governments to constitute various
Commissions and Boards laying down the policies and
ensuring that police perform their duties and functions free
from any pressure and also for separation of investigation
work from that of law and order.
The notice of the petition has also been served on State
Governments and Union Territories. We have heard Mr.
Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,
learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, Ms. Indu
Malhotra for the National Human Rights Commission and Ms.
Swati Mehta for the Common Welfare Initiatives. For most of
the State Governments/Union Territories oral submissions
were not made. None of the State Governments/Union
Territories urged that any of the suggestion put forth by the
petitioners and Solicitor General of India may not be accepted.
Besides the report submitted to the Government of India
by National Police Commission (1977-81), various other high
powered Committees and Commissions have examined the
issue of police reforms, viz. (i) National Human Rights
Commission (ii) Law Commission (iii) Ribeiro Committee (iv)
Padmanabhaiah Committee and (v) Malimath Committee on
Reforms of Criminal Justice System.
In addition to above, the Government of India in terms of
Office Memorandum dated 20th September, 2005 constituted a
Committee comprising Shri Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney
General and five others to draft a new Police Act in view of the
changing role of police due to various socio-economic and
political changes which have taken place in the country and
the challenges posed by modern day global terrorism,
extremism, rapid urbanization as well as fast evolving
aspirations of a modern democratic society. The Sorabjee
Committee has prepared a draft outline for a new Police Act
(9th September, 2006).
About one decade back, viz. on 3rd August, 1997 a letter
was sent by a Union Home Minister to the State Governments
revealing a distressing situation and expressing the view that
if the Rule of Law has to prevail, it must be cured.
Despite strong expression of opinions by various
Commissions, Committees and even a Home Minister of the
country, the position has not improved as these opinions have
remained only on paper, without any action. In fact, position
has deteriorated further. The National Human Rights
Commission in its report dated 31st May, 2002, inter alia,
noted that:
"Police Reform:

28(i) The Commission drew attention in its 1st

April 2002 proceedings to the need to act
decisively on the deeper question of Police
Reform, on which recommendations of the
National Police Commission (NPC) and of the
National Human Rights Commission have been
pending despite efforts to have them acted
upon. The Commission added that recent
event in Gujarat and, indeed, in other States of
the country, underlined the need to proceed
without delay to implement the reforms that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
have already been recommended in order to
preserve the integrity of the investigating
process and to insulate it from ’extraneous
influences’.

In the above noted letter dated 3rd April, 1997 sent to all
the State Governments, the Home Minister while echoing the
overall popular perception that there has been a general fall in
the performance of the police as also a deterioration in the
policing system as a whole in the country, expressed that time
had come to rise above limited perceptions to bring about
some drastic changes in the shape of reforms and
restructuring of the police before the country is overtaken by
unhealthy developments. It was expressed that the popular
perception all over the country appears to be that many of the
deficiencies in the functioning of the police had arisen largely
due to an overdose of unhealthy and petty political
interference at various levels starting from transfer and
posting of policemen of different ranks, misuse of police for
partisan purposes and political patronage quite often extended
to corrupt police personnel. The Union Home Minister
expressed the view that rising above narrow and partisan
considerations, it is of great national importance to insulate
the police from the growing tendency of partisan or political
interference in the discharge of its lawful functions of
prevention and control of crime including investigation of
cases and maintenance of public order.
Besides the Home Minister, all the Commissions and
Committees above noted, have broadly come to the same
conclusion on the issue of urgent need for police reforms.
There is convergence of views on the need to have (a) State
Security Commission at State level; (b) transparent procedure
for the appointment of Police Chief and the desirability of
giving him a minimum fixed tenure; (c) separation of
investigation work from law and order; and (d) a new Police Act
which should reflect the democratic aspirations of the people.
It has been contended that a statutory State Security
Commission with its recommendations binding on the
Government should have been established long before. The
apprehension expressed is that any Commission without
giving its report binding effect would be ineffective.
More than 25 years back i.e. in August 1979, the Police
Commission Report recommended that the investigation task
should be beyond any kind of intervention by the executive or
non-executive.
For separation of investigation work from law and order
even the Law Commission of India in its 154th Report had
recommended such separation to ensure speedier
investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the
people without of-course any water tight compartmentalization
in view of both functions being closely inter-related at the
ground level.
The Sorabjee Committee has also recommended
establishment of a State Bureau of Criminal Investigation by
the State Governments under the charge of a Director who
shall report to the Director General of Police.
In most of the reports, for appointment and posting,
constitution of a Police Establishment Board has been
recommended comprising of the Director General of Police of
the State and four other senior officers. It has been further
recommended that there should be a Public Complaints
Authority at district level to examine the complaints from the
public on police excesses, arbitrary arrests and detentions,
false implications in criminal cases, custodial violence etc. and
for making necessary recommendations.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
Undoubtedly and undisputedly, the Commission did
commendable work and after in depth study, made very useful
recommendations. After waiting for nearly 15 years, this
petition was filed. More than ten years have elapsed since this
petition was filed. Even during this period, on more or less
similar lines, recommendations for police reforms have been
made by other high powered committees as above noticed.
The Sorabjee Committee has also prepared a draft report. We
have no doubt that the said Committee would also make very
useful recommendations and come out with a model new
Police Act for consideration of the Central and the State
Governments. We have also no doubt that Sorabjee
Committee Report and the new Act will receive due attention of
the Central Government which may recommend to the State
Governments to consider passing of State Acts on the
suggested lines. We expect that the State Governments would
give it due consideration and would pass suitable legislations
on recommended lines, the police being a State subject under
the Constitution of India. The question, however, is whether
this Court should further wait for Governments to take
suitable steps for police reforms. The answer has to be in the
negative.
Having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem; (ii) the
urgent need for preservation and strengthening of Rule of Law;
(iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv)
the fact that various Commissions and Committees have made
recommendations on similar lines for introducing reforms in
the police set-up in the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to
when police reforms would be introduced, we think that there
cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come for issue
of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be
operative till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by
the Central Government and/or the State Governments pass
the requisite legislations. It may further be noted that the
quality of Criminal Justice System in the country, to a large
extent, depends upon the working of the police force. Thus,
having regard to the larger public interest, it is absolutely
necessary to issue the requisite directions. Nearly ten years
back, in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
[(1998) 1 SCC 226], this Court noticed the urgent need for the
State Governments to set up the requisite mechanism and
directed the Central Government to pursue the matter of
police reforms with the State Governments and ensure the
setting up of a mechanism for selection/appointment, tenure,
transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police
but also all police officers of the rank of Superintendents of
Police and above. The Court expressed its shock that in some
States the tenure of a Superintendent of Police is for a few
months and transfers are made for whimsical reasons which
has not only demoralizing effect on the police force but is also
alien to the envisaged constitutional machinery. It was
observed that apart from demoralizing the police force, it has
also the adverse effect of politicizing the personnel and,
therefore, it is essential that prompt measures are taken by
the Central Government.
The Court then observed that no action within the
constitutional scheme found necessary to remedy the situation
is too stringent in these circumstances.
More than four years have also lapsed since the report
above noted was submitted by the National Human Rights
commission to the Government of India.
The preparation of a model Police Act by the Central
Government and enactment of new Police Acts by State
Governments providing therein for the composition of State
Security Commission are things, we can only hope for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
present. Similarly, we can only express our hope that all State
Governments would rise to the occasion and enact a new
Police Act wholly insulating the police from any pressure
whatsoever thereby placing in position an important measure
for securing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution
for the Rule of Law, treating everyone equal and being partisan
to none, which will also help in securing an efficient and better
criminal justice delivery system. It is not possible or proper to
leave this matter only with an expression of this hope and to
await developments further. It is essential to lay down
guidelines to be operative till the new legislation is enacted by
the State Governments.
Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution
empowers this Court to issue such directions, as may be
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter.
All authorities are mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the
orders passed by this Court. The decision in Vineet Narain’s
case (supra) notes various decisions of this Court where
guidelines and directions to be observed were issued in
absence of legislation and implemented till legislatures pass
appropriate legislations.
With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the various reports. In discharge of our
constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the
aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the
Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories
for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations :
State Security Commission
(1) The State Governments are directed to constitute a
State Security Commission in every State to ensure
that the State Government does not exercise
unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police
and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that
the State police always acts according to the laws of
the land and the Constitution of the country. This
watchdog body shall be headed by the Chief Minister
or Home Minister as Chairman and have the DGP of
the State as its ex-officio Secretary. The other
members of the Commission shall be chosen in such a
manner that it is able to function independent of
Government control. For this purpose, the State may
choose any of the models recommended by the
National Human Rights Commission, the Ribeiro
Committee or the Sorabjee Committee, which are as
under:

NHRC
Ribeiro Committee
Sorabjee Committee
1. Chief Minister/HM as
Chairman.
1. Minister i/c Police as
Chairman
1. Minister i/c Police (ex-
officio Chairperson)
2. Lok Ayukta or, in his
absence, a retired Judge
of High Court to be
nominated by Chief
Justice or a Member of
State Human Rights
Commission.
2. Leader of Opposition.
2. Leader of Opposition.
3. A sitting or retired
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Judge nominated by Chief
Justice of High Court.
3. Judge, sitting or retired,
nominated by Chief Justice
of High Court.
3. Chief Secretary
4. Chief Secretary
4. Chief Secretary
4. DGP (ex-officio Secretary)
5. Leader of Opposition
in Lower House.
5. Three non-political
citizens of proven merit and
integrity.
5. Five independent Members.
6. DGP as ex-officio
Secretary.
6. DG Police as Secretary.
-

The recommendations of this Commission shall be

binding on the State Government.
The functions of the State Security Commission would
include laying down the broad policies and giving directions
for the performance of the preventive tasks and service
oriented functions of the police, evaluation of the
performance of the State police and preparing a report
thereon for being placed before the State legislature.
Selection and Minimum Tenure of DGP:
(2) The Director General of Police of the State shall be
selected by the State Government from amongst the
three senior-most officers of the Department who have
been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the
Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their
length of service, very good record and range of
experience for heading the police force. And, once he
has been selected for the job, he should have a
minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of
his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however,
be relieved of his responsibilities by the State
Government acting in consultation with the State
Security Commission consequent upon any action
taken against him under the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his
conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in
a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated
from discharging his duties.
Minimum Tenure of I.G. of Police & other officers:
(3) Police Officers on operational duties in the field like
the Inspector General of Police in-charge Zone, Deputy
Inspector General of Police in-charge Range,
Superintendent of Police in-charge district and Station
House Officer in-charge of a Police Station shall also
have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years unless
it is found necessary to remove them prematurely
following disciplinary proceedings against them or
their conviction in a criminal offence or in a case of
corruption or if the incumbent is otherwise
incapacitated from discharging his responsibilities.
This would be subject to promotion and retirement of
the officer.
Separation of Investigation:
(4) The investigating police shall be separated from the
law and order police to ensure speedier investigation,
better expertise and improved rapport with the people.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
It must, however, be ensured that there is full
coordination between the two wings. The separation,
to start with, may be effected in towns/urban areas
which have a population of ten lakhs or more, and
gradually extended to smaller towns/urban areas also.
Police Establishment Board:
(5) There shall be a Police Establishment Board in each
State which shall decide all transfers, postings,
promotions and other service related matters of
officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Establishment Board
shall be a departmental body comprising the Director
General of Police and four other senior officers of the
Department. The State Government may interfere with
decision of the Board in exceptional cases only after
recording its reasons for doing so. The Board shall
also be authorized to make appropriate
recommendations to the State Government regarding
the posting and transfers of officers of and above the
rank of Superintendent of Police, and the Government
is expected to give due weight to these
recommendations and shall normally accept it. It
shall also function as a forum of appeal for disposing
of representations from officers of the rank of
Superintendent of Police and above regarding their
promotion/transfer/disciplinary proceedings or their
being subjected to illegal or irregular orders and
generally reviewing the functioning of the police in the
State.

Police Complaints Authority:

(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the
district level to look into complaints against police
officers of and up to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be
another Police Complaints Authority at the State level
to look into complaints against officers of the rank of
Superintendent of Police and above. The district level
Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge
while the State level Authority may be headed by a
retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. The
head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be
chosen by the State Government out of a panel of
names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the
district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen
out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice
or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him.
These Authorities may be assisted by three to five
members depending upon the volume of complaints in
different States/districts, and they shall be selected by
the State Government from a panel prepared by the
State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State
Public Service Commission. The panel may include
members from amongst retired civil servants, police
officers or officers from any other department, or from
the civil society. They would work whole time for the
Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated
for the services rendered by them. The Authority may
also need the services of regular staff to conduct field
inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the
services of retired investigators from the CID,
Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The
State level Complaints Authority would take
cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct
by the police personnel, which would include incidents
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police
custody. The district level Complaints Authority
would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into
allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any
incident involving serious abuse of authority. The
recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at
the district and State levels, for any action,
departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police
officer shall be binding on the concerned authority.
National Security Commission:
(7) The Central Government shall also set up a National
Security Commission at the Union level to prepare a
panel for being placed before the appropriate
Appointing Authority, for selection and placement of
Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO), who
should also be given a minimum tenure of two years.
The Commission would also review from time to time
measures to upgrade the effectiveness of these forces,
improve the service conditions of its personnel, ensure
that there is proper coordination between them and
that the forces are generally utilized for the purposes
they were raised and make recommendations in that
behalf. The National Security Commission could be
headed by the Union Home Minister and comprise
heads of the CPOs and a couple of security experts as
members with the Union Home Secretary as its
Secretary.
The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the
Central Government, State Governments or Union Territories,
as the case may be, on or before 31st December, 2006 so that
the bodies afore-noted became operational on the onset of the
new year. The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and
the Chief Secretaries of State Governments/Union Territories
are directed to file affidavits of compliance by 3rd January,
2007.
Before parting, we may note another suggestion of Mr.
Prashant Bhushan that directions be also issued for dealing
with the cases arising out of threats emanating from
international terrorism or organized crimes like drug
trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of weapons from
across the borders, counterfeiting of currency or the activities
of mafia groups with trans-national links to be treated as
measures taken for the defence of India as mentioned in Entry
I of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
of India and as internal security measures as contemplated
under Article 355 as these threats and activities aim at
destabilizing the country and subverting the economy and
thereby weakening its defence. The suggestion is that the
investigation of above cases involving inter-state or
international ramifications deserves to be entrusted to the
Central Bureau of Investigation.
The suggestion, on the face of it, seems quite useful.
But, unlike the aforesaid aspects which were extensively
studied and examined by various experts and reports
submitted and about which for that reason, we had no
difficulty in issuing directions, there has not been much study
or material before us, on the basis whereof we could safely
issue the direction as suggested. For considering this
suggestion, it is necessary to enlist the views of expert bodies.
We, therefore, request the National Human Rights
Commission, Sorabjee Committee and Bureau of Police
Research and Development to examine the aforesaid
suggestion of Mr. Bhushan and assist this Court by filing their
considered views within four months. The Central
Government is also directed to examine this suggestion and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
submit its views within that time.
Further suggestion regarding monitoring of the aforesaid
directions that have been issued either by National Human
Rights Commission or the Police Bureau would be considered
on filing of compliance affidavits whereupon the matter shall
be listed before the Court.