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.