In a recent case, the Supreme Court directed the appropriate government to enact a law by June 2011.  The case, Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors.[1], concerned the legal framework for regulating hawking in Delhi.  The judgement lays out the background to this case by stating that the regulation of hawking in Delhi had been proceeding under directions issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases, and was being implemented by municipal authorities such as the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). The NDMC and the MCD have also framed schemes to regulate hawkers as per a policy of the government framed in 2004.  However, since these schemes were not laid before Parliament, the Court held that these schemes cannot be called ‘law’ or drafted under the authority of any law.  The Court also stated that there is an urgent need to enact a legislation to regulate hawking, and the rights of street vendors. It referred to a Bill which had been framed by the government, and stated that since the government has already taken the first step in the legislative process by drafting a Bill, the legislative process should be completed.  On the basis of this, and other reasons, it directed the government to enact a law by June 2011.  This judgement raises three issues:

  1. The government is not the law making body in India.  Enacting a law is the function of Parliament and state legislatures.
  2. Even if the Court were to address the correct authority, Courts in India have no authority to direct the legislature to frame a law, let alone specify a time-period.  This may be said to violate the basic principle of “separation of powers” which states that the executive, legislature and judiciary should function independently of each other.  Under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to protect fundamental rights and to interpret law.  The Constitution does not give power to Courts to direct the framing of a law.
  3. Persons can be held in contempt of court for not following its directions.  In this case, it is not clear who would be held in contempt for not enacting a law by June 2011.  The Supreme Court can either hold the Speaker of the Parliament in contempt for not enacting a law by the specified date (it is uncertain whether the Court has this power since no such past instance has arisen). Or it can hold the concerned government official in contempt for not enacting the law within the time period specified (the government in this case, having no power to enact a law).

[1] Decided on October 8, 2010

Recently, there have been multiple Naxal attacks on CRPF personnel in Chhattisgarh.  Parliamentary Committees have previously examined the working of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).  In this context, we examine issues related to functioning of these Forces and recommendations made to address them.

What is the role of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)?

Under the Constitution, police and public order are state subjects.  However, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) assists state governments by providing them support of the Central Armed Police Forces.  The Ministry maintains seven CAPFs: (i) the Central Reserve Police Force, which assists in internal security and counterinsurgency, (ii) the Central Industrial Security Force, which protects vital installations (like airports) and public sector undertakings, (iii) the National Security Guards, which is a special counterterrorism force, and (iv) four border guarding forces, which are the Border Security Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Sashastra Seema Bal, and Assam Rifles.

What is the sanctioned strength of CAPFs personnel compared to the actual strength?

As of January 2017, the sanctioned strength of the seven CAPFs was 10,78,514 personnel.  However, 15% of these posts (1,58,591 posts) were lying vacant.  Data from the Bureau of Police Research and Development shows that vacancies in the CAPFs have remained over the years.  Table 1 shows the level of vacancies in the seven CAPFs between 2012 and 2017. Nov 2The level of vacancies is different for various police forces.  For example, in 2017, the Sashastra Seema Bal had the highest level of vacancies at 57%.  On the other hand, the Border Security Force had 2% vacancies.  The Central Reserve Police Force, which account for 30% of the sanctioned strength of the seven CAPFs, had a vacancy of 8%.

How often are CAPFs deployed?

According to the Estimates Committee of Parliament, the number of deployment of CAPFs battalions has increased from 91 in 2012-13 to 119 in 2016-17.  The Committee has noted that there has been heavy dependence by states on central police forces even for day-to-day law and order issues.  This is likely to affect anti-insurgency and border-guarding operations of the Forces, as well as curtail their time for training.  The continuous deployment also leaves less time for rest and recuperation.

The Estimates Committee recommended that states must develop their own systems, and augment their police forces by providing adequate training and equipment.  It further recommended that the central government should supplement the efforts of state governments by providing financial assistance and other help for capacity building of their forces.

What is the financial allocation to CAPFs?

Under the Union Budget 2018-19, an allocation of Rs 62,741 crore was made to the seven CAPFs.  Of this, 32% (Rs 20,268 crore) has been allocated to the Central Reserve Police Forces.  The Estimates Committee has pointed out that most of the expenditure of the CAPFs was on salaries.  According to the Committee, the financial performance in case of outlays allocated for capacity augmentation has been very poor.  For example, under the Modernization Plan-II, Rs 11,009 crore was approved for the period 2012-17.  However, the allocation during the period 2013-16 was Rs 251 crore and the reported expenditure was Rs 198 crore.

What are the working conditions for CAPFs personnel?

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs in the year 2017 had expressed concern over the working conditions of personnel of the border guarding forces (Border Security Force, Assam Rifles, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, and Sashastra Seema Bal).  The Committee observed that they had to work 16-18 hours a day, with little time for rest or sleep.  The personnel were also not satisfied with medical facilities that had been provided at border locations.

In addition, the Standing Committee observed that personnel of the CAPFs have not been treated at par with the Armed Forces, in terms of pay and allowances.  The demand for Paramilitary Service Pay, similar to Military Service Pay, had not been agreed to by the Seventh Central Pay Commission.  Further, the Committee observed that the hard-area allowance for personnel of the border guarding forces was much lower as compared to members of the Armed Forces, despite being posted in areas with difficult terrain and harsh weather.

What is the status of training facilities and infrastructure available to CAPFs?

The Estimates Committee has noted that all CAPFs have set up training institutions to meet their training requirements and impart professional skills on specialised topics.  However, the Committee noted that there is an urgent need to upgrade the curriculum and infrastructure in these training institutes.  It recommended that while purchasing the latest equipment, training needs should also be taken care of, and if required, should be included in the purchase agreement itself.  Further, it recommended that the contents of training should be a mix of conventional matters as well as latest technologies such as IT, and cyber security.

According to the Estimates Committee, the MHA has been making efforts to provide modern arms, ammunition, and vehicles to the CAPFs.  In this regard, the Modernization Plan-II, for the period 2012-17, was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security.  The Plan aims to provide financial support to CAPFs for modernisation in areas of arms, clothing, and equipment.

However, the Committee observed that the procurement process under the Plan was cumbersome and time consuming.  It recommended that the bottlenecks in procurement should be identified and corrective action should be taken.  It further suggested that the MHA and CAPFs should hold negotiations with ordnance factories and manufacturers in the public or private sector, to ensure an uninterrupted supply of equipment and other infrastructure.