District Magistrate and Police Superintendent in India: the controversy of Dual Control
| Date | 01 July 1967 |
| Author | Haridwar Rai |
| Published date | 01 July 1967 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162X.1967.tb00300.x |
District Magistrate and
Police Superintendent in
India:
the controversy of Dual Control
By
HARIDWAR
RAI
Dr.
Rai is
Reader
in Political Science at
Patna
University, Bihar.
The
History
of
the
System
REORGA~IZATIO~
and improvement of the police was an important concern
to which the British Government in India turned its attention after the
Mutiny. In 1860, a commission consisting of representatives from each
of
the six provinces was appointed to consider and report on the whole question.
They
were instructed to devise a scheme which would ensure that the police
organization was centralized in the hands of the executive government.
The
commission, in its report, suggested that in every district under the
jurisidiction of one magistrate there should be at least one European officer
of
police, to be styled district superintendent
of
police, who should be
departmentally subordinate to the Inspector General of Police in every
matter relating to the interior economy and good management of the force
and the efficient performance of every policy duty.
The
commission, never-
theless, declared that the district superintendent of police should be bound
also to obey the orders of the district officer in all matters relating to the
prevention of crime, the preservation of the peace and other executive police
duties, and be responsible to him likewise for the efficiency with which the
force performed its duty.
These proposals were embodied in the Police Act of 1861. Section 4
of
the Act read:
'The
administration of the police throughout a general police district
shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector-General
of
Police,
and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspectors-General
as the Local Government shall deem fit.
'The
administration of the police throughout the local jurisdiction of
the Magistrate of the district shall, under the general control and direction
of
such Magistrate, be vested in a District Superintendent and such
Assistant District Superintendents as the Local Government shall consider
necessary.'
It
is clear from the provisions of the Police Act that the intention was that
for maintaining discipline in the police force in the district, the superintendent
of
police was to be exclusively responsible. But the police force was to be
an efficient instrument at the disposal of the district magistrate for the
prevention and detection of crime, and was to be under his general control
and direction.
But this arrangement, as contemplated by the Act, could not be carried
out because the members of the civil service did not appeciate the separation
of
police work from district and divisional executive agencies.
They
were
192
To continue reading
Request your trial