History, Development and Role of Police

History
In the aftermath of the War of Independence of 1857, which seriously challenged British rule over the
subcontinent, the Police Commission of 1860 recommended the abolition of the Military Arm of the
Police; the appointment of an Inspector General of Police in the Province; and the placement of police in
a district under the District Superintendent with general control wielded by the District Magistrate.
Based on the recommendations of the Commission the Government of India submitted a bill that was
passed into the Police Act of 1861. It has been noted that the aim of the law was to keep “the natives on
a tight leash” and that the police was not organised as a “politically neutral outfit for fair and just
enforcement of law”.35The overall organisation of the police forces remained much the same after the
independence of Pakistan in 1947. Except for the centrally administered and tribal territories, basic law
and order responsibilities have been carried out by the four provincial governments, who were also
entitled to make rules under the Police Act, 1861. The police in the various provinces and regions are
established as separate establishments without any nationwide integration of these policing bodies.
However, the federal government has established a series of specialised investigating agencies at the
national level, and as part of its mandate, the federal government asserts primacy in any matter relating
to national security.

Police reforms
Since policing in independent Pakistan has reflected the same deficiencies and flaws of policing as during
colonial rule, a number of reform efforts have been undertaken to improve the performance of law
enforcement agencies:
1948: Passage of Bill to introduce a Metropolitan System of Policing in Karachi
1951: Recommendations of Sir Oliver Gilbert Grace, IG Police, NWFP
1961: Police Commission headed by Mr Justice J.B. Constantine
1962: Pay & Services Reorganisation Committee (Justice Cornelius)
1970: Police Commission headed by Major General A.O. Mitha
1976: Police Station Enquiry Committee headed by M.A.K. Chaudhry, IG Police
1976: Law and Order Sub-Committee headed by Ch. Fazal Haque
1976: Police Reforms Committee headed by Rafi Raza
1981: Orakzai Committee on Police Welfare, Promotion and Seniority Rules
1982: Cabinet Committee on the Emoluments of SHOs
1983: Cabinet Committee on Determining the Status of SHOs
1983: Sahibzada Rauf Ali Committee
1985: The Police Committee headed by Mr Aslam Hayat
1987: Report of the two-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India
1989: Report of the seven-member delegation’s visit to Bangladesh and India
1990: Police Reforms Implementation Committee – M.A.K. Chaudhary
1995: Report of the UN Mission on Organised Crime in Pakistan
1996: Report of the Japanese Police Delegation on the Police System in Pakistan
1997: Committee on Police Reforms under the Chairmanship of Interior Minister
1998: Report of the Good Governance Group on Police Reforms: Committee Vision
2000: Report of the Focal Group on Police Reforms: NRB Draft 2000
Structural organization under Police Act, 1861
 Inspector General of Police

IGP (BPS-22) province

 Additional Inspector General of police

Addl. IGP (BPS-21) province

 Divisional Inspector General of police

DIG (BPS-20) Divisional range

 Senior Superintendent of police

SSP (BPS-18-19) district

 Superintendent of police

SP (BPS-18/19) district

 Assistant Superintendent of police

ASP (BPS-17/18)

 Deputy Superintendent of police

DSP (BPS-17) sub division/Tehsil

 Inspector (BPS-16) Thana

 Sub Inspector (BPS-14)
 Assistant Sub-Inspector

ASI (BPS-9/11)

 Head constable

HC (BPS-7)

Foot constable

 FC (BPS-5)

In terms of categorization:

1-Constable to head constable is Lower subordinates.

2-ASI to Inspector is higher subordinates.

3-ASP and above are gazette officers.

Structural Organization under Police order, 2002

 The above structural organization and functional hierarchy was based on Police act of 1861. Up till
2002 it was working but in 2002 police order was incorporated. Under the police order 2002, the
terminology has slightly changed, but, by and large the structure has remained the same. According
to it the chief of the police force in the provinces are provincial police offer (PPO) equivalent to the
level of IGP previously. Secondly, each provincial capital is referred to as a capital city which has a
capital city police officer (CCPO) recruited from among the officers of the rank of additional IG. Then
each city district has a city police officer at least of the DIG rank. Then normally every district has a
district police officer (DPO) recruited from the level of at least SSP or SP rank. Lower hierarchy
remains largely the same

Functional organization of police

The basic territorial division in Pakistan is a district. The head of policing in every district is a District
Police Officer (DPO) of the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). Every district is divided into
sub-divisions. A sub-division is the responsibility of an officer of the rank of ASP or DSP. Every sub-
division is further divided into two or more police stations, depending on the area, population and
incidences of crime. A police station may further be divided into police outposts. Police outposts are
usually provided in areas where the territorial jurisdiction of the police station is so large that it is
difficult to manage policing from the location of the police station. Inspectors are usually assigned to
head police stations. In that capacity, they will be known as the Station House Officer (SHO). Districts are
grouped together to form a Region. The DPO of a district reports to the Regional Police Officer (RPO),
who in turn reports to the PPO/IGP. By way of an example, there are eight regions in Punjab, with
Sheikhupura Region including Kasur, Okara and Sheikhupura. The province of Sindh has three regions
comprising Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur.

Duties and Functions of Police

Duties of Police under Police Act, 1861

The duties of the police as enumerated in the Police Act of 1861 were fairly straightforward and basic:

a) obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued by any competent authority;

b) collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace;

c) prevent commission of offences and public nuisances;

d) detect and bring offenders to justice; and

e) apprehend all persons whom the police are legally authorised to apprehend and for whose
apprehension sufficient ground exists.

Duties of police under Police Order, 2002

The Police Order, 2002 is far more detailed about the duties and responsibilities police officers are
expected to fulfil:

a) protect life, property and liberty of citizens;

b) preserve and promote public peace;

c) ensure that the rights and privileges, under the law, of a person taken incustody, are protected;d)
prevent the commission of offences and public nuisance;e) collect and communicate intelligence
affecting public peace and crime in general;

f ) keep order and prevent obstruction on public roads and in the public streets and thoroughfares at
fairs and all other places of public resort and in the neighborhood of and at places of public worship;

g) regulate and control traffic on public roads and streets;

h) take charge of all unclaimed property and prepare its inventory;

i) detect and bring offenders to justice;

j) apprehend all persons whom the police are legally authorised to apprehend and for whose
apprehension, sufficient grounds exist;

k) ensure that the information about the arrest of a person is promptly communicated to a person of his
choice;

l) enter and inspect without a warrant on reliable information any public place, shop or gaming-house
where alcoholic drinks or narcotics are sold or weapons are illegally stored, and other public places of
resort of loose and disorderly characters;
m) obey and promptly execute all lawful orders;
n) perform other duties and exercise powers as are conferred by this Order, the Code or any other law
for the time being in force;
o) aid and cooperate with other agencies for the prevention of destruction of public property by
violence, fire, or natural calamities;
p) assist in preventing members of the public from exploitation by any person or organised groups;
q) take charge of lunatics at large to prevent them from causing harm to themselves or other members
of the public and their property;
r) prevent harassment of women and children in public places; and
s) lay information before a competent court and apply for a summons, warrant, search warrant or such
other legal process as may, by law, be issued against any person suspected of committing an offence

Province Number of police stations

Punjab 705

Sindh 566

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 281

Baluchistan 125

ICT 22

Total 1699
Relationship of police and citizens in Pakistan

It is widely regarded that the police in any given society have a difficult job to fulfil. Dealing with
criminals and facing the harm on a day to day basis is indeed an admirable calling. Although seen as
difficult, there is an underlying sentiment in the general public that the job of law enforcement officers
is relatively straightforward. The role of police in modern society is often a conflicted one. The public
seems alternately torn between crying out because of abuses of police power and calling for increased
police protection from the ills of the world. The police, as a social institution, seem to be caught
between these two extremes, trying to balance liberty with security. Out of this inherent tension is the
place of the police in modern society, many of the positive and negative aspects and roles of the
institution begin to emerge.

Today, the relationship between police and the citizens has become so dreadful in our country. A citizen
and a policeman both have negative attitudes. The attitude of policemen towards their job is very
careless. People mostly prefer to solve their problems themselves, instead of taking help from police.
This trend needs to be changed. There is a need that policemen must bring a change in their attitude
towards the public. This change will help to improve the all over law and order situation of our country.
There must be the cooperation level between both the policemen and citizens equally so that both can
perform their duties and also bear their responsibilities for a good society and the country.

KPK police reforms

BEFORE the passage of the 25th Constitutional Amendment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) had different administrative, law-enforcement and legal fabrics. After
the amendment and the military operations, KP is experiencing another administrative and legal
transition.

The successful implementation of a few reform measures led the provincial government to enact the KP
Police Ordinance, 2016, which was followed by the enactment of the KP Police Act, 2017. The law was
passed with the aim of making the police service apolitical, operationally autonomous and accountable
to civilian oversight. It is a pioneer police law in that it entrusts the IG with complete operational
autonomy.

Ideally, law-enforcement agencies are assessed on the basis of operational autonomy, public safety,
service delivery and accountability. Though the 2017 act provides a framework for all such essentials,
their implementation remains selective. Hence, public safety is compromised. Police Order 2002, and
Section 13 (3-VI) of Police Act 2017 also provide the ‘internal accountability apparatus’ but under Police
Order 2002 this either remained dysfunctional or accountability remained selective.

Section 17(6) of the KP Police Act, 2017, obligates the provincial police officer to draft an annual policing
plan but this has yet to happen. Similarly, Section 22(2) of the act obligates the district police officer
(DPO) to also draft an annual police plan, to be consistent with the overall provincial plan. But both are
nowhere in sight, mainly due to the absence of the provincial public safety commission.

Chapter 5 of the 2017 act provides for the composition and functions of the public safety commissions
but inherent flaws in the composition of scrutiny committees stalled the process. To select independent
members of the provincial public safety commission, the scrutiny committee has to include the chief
justice of the Peshawar High Court and chairmen of the defunct Ehtesab Commission and the Public
Service Commission.

However, in 2018 the inclusion of the Peshawar High Court chief justice and district judges was
challenged in the Peshawar High Court on the plea that it was in violation of the principle of the
separation of the executive and judiciary incorporated in Article 175(3) of the Constitution. Moreover,
with the KP Ehtesab Commission later dissolved in December 2018, the position of one member of the
scrutiny committee stands nullified while that of another remains sub judice.

Furthermore, improving the quality of investigations neither remained a professional priority nor was it
allocated the required resources. Section 26(8) of the 2017 law makes SP Investigation answerable to
the DPO. However, such subordination gives birth to duality of command that often compromises the
rights and interests of the complainants.

For the first time in Pakistan, a police law provided a framework for overseeing the implementation
process. Section 143 of the KP Police Act, 2017, calls for the appointment of an ‘implementation
commissioner’. However, the previous implementation commissioner has completed his one-year term,
and a new appointment is yet to be made.

Moreover, Section 47 allows for public-police coordination through the formation of public liaison
councils. Under the law, 70 per cent of the council members are to be notified from village councils and
30pc from amongst notables. Although these councils have been entrusted with numerous functions,
including assistance to the police in crime prevention, the maintenance of public order, sharing of
information regarding new tenants, misuse of loudspeakers and reporting of hate speech, capacity
constraints have limited their output. The discretion of the DPOs regarding the selection of councils also
warrants independent monitoring.

The challenges of policing in KP are unique and the merger of the tribal areas has multiplied them.
Besides crime prevention and detection, the police also have to deal with counterterrorism, counter-
extremism, issues related to the merger of levies and Khasadar men with the provincial police umbrella,
increased public service and the execution of a doable transition plan in Malakand and erstwhile Fata.
These are a few major priorities for the ongoing transition to sustain the hard-earned peace in the
province.
The present challenges can effectively be dealt with by employing honest officers, adopting long-term
planning and additional resource allocation. Cosmetic and mere change of faces may not yield the
dividends. Administering the tribal districts via remote-controlled policing will only end up creating a
greater administrative void. The only option left is to convert the challenge into an opportunity that is
best suited to the state.

Aim of police reforms in Pakistan

Police reforms have been an important topic of discussion in the country, in an attempt to prevent crime
as well as prevent police brutality in violation of the fundamental human rights of citizens.

The issue of police reforms has sat at centre-stage after the repeal of the Police Order, 2002 by the
provinces. A petition was filed in the Sindh High Court, asking for the legality of the Police Order, 2002
and declaring the Sindh Police Law of 2011 unconstitutional.

The Sindh High Court held that the police has been exclusively a provincial subject from 1935 and that
the Sindh Assembly had rightly repealed the Police Order, 2002. The petitioners preferred to appeal,
which was dismissed by the Supreme Court; so the decision of the high court is now in the field.

Although there are no two opinions that the police must be free from any political control with sufficient
internal autonomy, police officialdom is pursuing the reforms agenda on the basis of a slogan of de-
politicization for two purposes: more powers for the police bureaucracy and centralization of the
provincial subject of police.

Depoliticizing the police means that legislators or political parties should not interfere in the
administrative affairs of the police. However, depoliticizing is also confused with the executive power of
the provinces, which is totally misleading.

The police consider the 2002 Police Order an ideal police law for reform purposes. However, under that
very order, the police elite placed controls on the police in the shape of public safety commissions
totally ineffective. What it wanted to retain was the power of transfer and posting of its officers. As a
result of this, it became more politicized; the arbitrary use of the police for the May 12 mayhem in 2007
is a case in point.

The Sindh Police Act, 2019 enacted recently is modeled on the Police Order, 2002 but the police do not
seem satisfied with it. For the police, depoliticization means that they should be free from the executive
control of the provincial government. For this, the police play both the federal and the provincial
governments against each other in order to promote group interests at the cost of people’s rights.

An effort has been made by the police since inception of Pakistan to centralize this purely provincial
subject in order to avoid the executive control exercised by the provinces. Section 10 of the
Independence Act, 1947 abolished all central services.

In 1949, the police cadre rules were framed to create a central Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) without
any act of the constituent assembly. Those rules had no legal basis. General Zia again tried to legalize the
PSP through the police cadre rules of 1985. Police bigwigs quote the saving clause of Article 241 of the
constitution as protection of their service but the article provides them no such protection as the police
service never existed legally through an act of parliament. Even the central legislature could not have
passed for want of legislative competence, the police being a provincial subject.

Strangely enough, for their reform agenda, the police prefer the laws of Zia, Musharraf – or resort to
judicial forums when convenient.

What the police elite want is that their service should be central so that the provincial government may
not take any disciplinary action against their officers for misconduct. Second, the police elite want that
the transfer and postings of their officers be handled by the police themselves. If the provincial
executive would neither have a say in the transfer and posting nor would it be able to suspend or
dismiss a police officer for misconduct why then would it retain the police as a provincial force?

Police officers want security of tenure for the positions of SP to IG which is a good idea for service
delivery. However, in the same breath, they are opposed to security of tenure for SHOs. They transfer
poor SHOs every month – though legally speaking only an SHO has legal powers under the law and the
functions of all other officers are supervisory.

The institution of the police station which is the linchpin of the whole system has been made redundant
by the police bureaucracy. It has neither a budget of its own nor independence for the required service
delivery – though the Sindh government gives the police more than Rs110 billion annual budget, the
third biggest outlay after education and health. Even if an amount of Rs20 million is allocated for each
police station, it would cost only Rs10 billion for 500 police stations of Sindh to make them model
service centers.

In the Sindh High Court, the petitioners quoted extensively from a 2006 Parkash Singh case of the Indian
Supreme Court, which asked provinces to enact A Model Police Act by their consent. Even in India,
under the Model Act enacted by some states, the director general of police who heads the police in a
province is appointed by state governments without any interference from the central government and
provincial governments exercise complete executive authority over the police.

The so-called reform agenda is not aimed at depoliticizing police, rather making the police totally
unaccountable and a state within state.

For more information on causes and effects of police reforms in Pakistan

https://dailytimes.com.pk/465073/police-reforms-causes-outcomes-and-a-way-forward/

a must read

https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_organisations_in_pakistan.pdf