Police Complaints Authority (PCA)

What is 'PCA'?

The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is a state-level body that adjudicates allegations against police officers of improper or shoddy investigations, refusal to file FIRs, custodial torture and high-handedness. Typically, the PCA operates independently of the police departments it investigates, and its findings can result in recommendations for disciplinary actions, policy changes, or even criminal charges. This independence is crucial in fostering public confidence and ensuring that investigations are conducted without bias. By providing an avenue for civilians to file complaints against the police, the PCA aims to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

PCAs were established by the Supreme Court's order in the Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. case, in response to the huge volume of complaints against the police and the endemic lack of accountability. As of July 2024, PCAs are functional in only 14 States/UTs. 11 of these were constituted in the past 2 years. Further, in 4 states, PCA's functions have been assigned to other authorities/officials.

Official Definition of 'PCA'

'PCA' as defined in Legislation

Each state has its own legislative framework defining Police Complaints Authorities, since "Police" is a state subject in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, different states have constituted PCAs by amending their State Police Acts, or by an Executive Order. However, they have also been defined in the Model Police Act, 2006 and the Model Police Bill, 2015, created by the Central Government to support adoption by states.

Model Police Act, 2006

Section 159. Police Accountability Commission: The State Government shall, within three months of the coming into effect of this Act, establish a State-level Police Accountability Commission (“the Commission”), consisting of a Chairperson, Members and such other staff as may be necessary, to inquire into public complaints supported by sworn statement against the police personnel for serious misconduct and perform such other functions as stipulated in this Chapter.

'PCA' as defined in Official Government Reports

National Police Commission, 1977-81

The National Police Commission was created to oversee comprehensive police reform. They pointed out the "need for a special complaint cell headed by a Dy.S.P. in each district to handle inquiries into allegations of police misconduct in which the normal hierarchical levels are likely to take a biased view for any local reason. There shall be a similar cell working directly under each Range DIG for handling Inquiries. At the, State HQ, there shall be a special cell under a S.P. with supporting staff working directly under the IG to handle such inquiries, which require special attention at national level."

Report of Ribeiro Committee, 1998-99

As quoted by the Mooshahary Committee, the Ribeiro Committee recommended the "establishment of a non-statutory body in each district for examining the cases of police excesses, arbitrary arrests and detentions. false implication in criminal cases, custodial violence, etc." This is considered the historic start of the Police Complaint Authority (PCA).

Report of Padmanabhaiah Committee, 2000

Similarly, the Padmanabhaiah Committee made a similar recommendation, arguing for "District police complaints authorities should be set up for looking Into complaints against the police."

Report of Mooshahary Committee, 2005

The Mooshahary Committee was constituted in 2005 to review recommendations of various committees on police reform. With respect to PCAs, it made the following observation: "Here, the need for a proper mechanism for dealing with the complaints of the public becomes very acute. Creating effective institutional mechanism to-deal with public complaints and for audit of police . performance will help in instilling greater confidence of the public in the police."

5th Report of 2nd Administrative Reform Commission, 2005

The 2nd Administrative Reform Commission was tasked with reviewing the administration from all angles of political, social, and economic needs. Its Fifth Report on "Public Order" dealt with the police. On the issue of Police Accountability, it made the following recommendation:

"A District Police Complaints Authority should be constituted to enquire into allegations against the police within the district. The District Police Complaints Authority should have an eminent citizen as its Chairperson, with an eminent lawyer and a retired government servant as its Members. The Chairperson and Members of the District Police Complaints Authority should be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission. A government officer should be appointed as Secretary of the District Police Complaints Authority.

The District Police Complaints Authority should have the powers to enquire into misconduct or abuse of power against police officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It should exercise all the powers of a civil court. The Authority should be empowered to investigate any case itself or ask any other agency to investigate and submit a report. The Disciplinary Authorities should normally accept the recommendations of the District Authorities.

A State Police Complaints Authority should be constituted to look into cases of serious misconduct by the police. The State level Authority should also look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The State Police Complaints Authority should have a retired High Court Judge as Chairperson and nominees of the State Government, the State Human Rights Commission, the State Lok Ayukta, and the State Women Commission. An eminent human rights activist should be also be the member of the Complaints Authority. The Chairperson and the Member of the Authority (eminent human rights activist) should be appointed by the State Government based on the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission. (In case the State Human Rights Commission has not been constituted, then the State Lok Ayukta may be consulted). A government officer should officiate as the secretary of the Authority. The Authority should have the power to ask any agency to conduct an enquiry or enquire itself. The Authority should also be empowered to enquire into or review any case of police misconduct, which is before any District Police Complaints Authority, if it finds it necessary in public interest to do so.

It should be provided that if upon enquiry it is found that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, then the Authority should have the power to impose a reasonable fine on the complainant.

The State Police Complaints Authority should also monitor the functioning of the District Police Complaints Authority.

The Complaint Authorities should be given the powers of a civil court. It should be mandated that all complaints should be disposed of within a month."

237th Report on Police - Training, Modernisation and Reforms, DPRSC Home Affairs, 2022.

The Departmentally-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee for the Ministry of Home Affairs undertook a detailed analysis of police modernization in the country. While considering the issue of establishment of independent PCAs, it made the following observation:

"The Committee notes that 31 States/UTs have constituted Police Complaints Authorities at the State and District levels for looking into complaints against police officers. The Committee is of the view that the Police Complaint Authority should be established outside the police force. Therefore, The Committee recommends that the MHA along with the Ministry of Law & Justice may take up with States to ensure that the Police Complaint Authority should comprise of retired High Court Judges, retired senior civil servant/ police officers, eminent jurists along with the representation of women. The Committee also recommends that BPR&D may conduct a study to assess the effectiveness of the Independent Police Complaint Authority in States to check whether the complaints against police personnel have gone up or reduced. The study may also include the types of complaints against police personnel and action taken thereon.

The Committee also recommends that the MHA may advise States that the internal grievance redressal cell of police should work in a time-bound manner so that the grievances of aggrieved police personnel are addressed in time."

'PCA' as defined in Case Laws

Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006

In the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down 7 key guidelines for the conduct of police, considering rising cases of abuse of power. Therein, the court laid down the following guidelines about creating PCAs:

"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 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."

Regional Variations of 'PCA'

Different states have constituted Police Complaint Authorities with different provisions. A tabular summary of their composition and powers is given below:

State	Constitution	Composition	Functions
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	Data unavailable.
Andhra Pradesh	via Rules.	(a) State Police Complaints Authority shall consist of one Retired Judge of the High Court / Supreme Court who shall act as Chairman of the Authority and he will be assisted by three to five other members. (b) The Chairman of the State Police Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice. (c) The Members of the State Police Complaints Authority 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 of any other department or from civil society with proven credentials.	State Level Police Complaints Authority shall look into the complaints made against the officers of the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police and above and shall take into cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody.
Arunachal Pradesh	Data unavailable.
Assam	via Assam Police Act.	(a) a retired High Court Judge, who shall be the Chairperson of the Commission; (b) a retired police officer superannuated in the rank of Director General of Police or Additional Director General of Police; (c) a person with a minimum of 10 years of experience either as a judicial officer. public prosecutor, practicing advocate, or a professor of law; or a person of repute and standing from the civil society; and (d) a retired officer with experience in public administration, not below the rank of Commissioner and Secretary to the State Government: Provided that at least one member of the Commission shall be a woman and not more than one member shall be a retired police officer.	The Commission shall enquire into allegations of "serious misconduct" against police personnel, as detailed below, either suo moto or on a complaint received from any of the following: (a) a victim or any person on his behalf; (b) the National or the State Human Rights Commission; (c) the police; or (d) any other source.
Bihar	NA	NA	NA
Chandigarh	NA	NA	NA
Chhattisgarh	via Chhattisgarh Police Act (not operationalized yet).	(1) A retired judge of High Court or retired judge of Higher Judicial Service, who was at the time of superannuation, qualified to become a judge of High Court, who shall be Chairperson of the Authority; (2) A retired Police Officer superannuated in the rank of Additional Director General of Police or above; (3) A retired civil servant superannuated in the rank of Secretary to the State Government or above; (4) A person of repute and standing from the civil society ordinarily residing in the State of Chhattisgarh: Provided that at least one member of the Authority shall be a woman.	(a) To inquire into allegations of "serious misconduct" against police personnel on a complaint:- (i) received from a victim or a close relative of the victim supported by an affidavit; (ii) referred to it by the State Government. (b) To carry out such other functions as the State Government may, from time to time, specify by an order.
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu	Data unavailable.
Goa	Data unavailable.
Gujarat	Data unavailable.
Haryana	via Amendment in Police Act.	The State Government shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, establish at the State Level, a Police Complaint Authority, which shall be either a retired Judge or a retired civil servant, not below the rank of Secretary to the State or a lawyer well versed with criminal law and with an experience of at least twenty years in the relevant field, for inquiries and investigations into the complaints against the police officers and officials of the State.	(1) The Authority shall inquire into allegations of "serious misconduct" against police personnel as detailed below, either suo motu or on a complaint received from any of the following:- (a) a victim or any person on his behalf on a sworn affidavit; (b) the National or State Human Rights Commission. (c) grievous hurt in police custody; (2) The Authority may also inquire into any other case referred to it by the Director General of Police or the State Government.
Himachal Pradesh	NA	NA	Assigned to Home Ministry.
Jammu & Kashmir	NA	NA	NA
Jharkhand	Data unavailable.
Karnataka	via Amendment in Police Act.	(i) One shall be the Chairman selected from among the panel of three retired High Court Judges recommended by the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka. (ii) one member shall be from among the retired Civil Service who shall be an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government; (iii) one member shall be from Civil Society; (iv) one women IPS Officer of not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police; and (v) the Additional General of Police (Grievance) nominated by the State Government as the Ex-officio member and member Secretary of the Authority.	The State Police Complaints Authority shall inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police officers, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the alleged police officer either suo moto or on a complaint received from any of the following, namely:- (a) a victim or any person on his behalf; or (b) the National or the State Human Rights Commission; or (c) the police; or (d) any other source.
Kerala	Data unavailable.
Ladakh	NA	NA	NA
Lakshwadweep	NA	NA	NA
Madhya Pradesh	NA	NA	NA
Maharashtra	via Amendment in Police Act.	The State Police Complaints Authority shall consist of the following members, namely:- (a) A retired High Court Judge Chairperson; (b) A Police Officer superannuated in the rank not below the rank of Special Inspector General of Police Member; (c) A person of eminence from the civil society Member; (d) A retired officer not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government Member; (e) Officer not below the rank of Additional Director General and Inspector General of Police Member-Secretary. The Chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the High Court.	(a) inquire suo-moto or on a complaint against Police Officers presented to it by,- (i) a victim or any member of his family or any other person on his behalf; (ii) the National or State Human Rights Commission; and (iii) the police, into the complaint of,- (i) death in police custody; (ii) grievous hurt as defined under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (iii) rape or attempt to commit rape; (iv) arrest or detention without following the prescribed procedure; (v) corruption; (vi) extortion; (vii) land or house grabbing; and (viii) any other matter involving serious violation of any provision of law or abuse of lawful authority; (b) require any person to furnish information on such points or matters as in the opinion of the authority may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of inquiry.
Manipur	NA	NA	NA
Meghalaya	NA	NA	NA
Mizoram	NA	NA	NA
Nagaland	Data unavailable.
National Capital Territory of Delhi	via Rules.	The Police Complaint Authority of National Capital Territory of Delhi shall be headed by the Chairman/Chairperson with three Members. One of the three Members must be a woman. The Chairman/Chairperson will be selected from below mentioned category (a) and one Member each from the categories (b) to (d) will be selected: (a) A retired High Court Judge; (b) A person of repute and stature from civil society; (c) A retired civil servant of minimum of scale of Secretary to GNCT of Delhi with experience in Public Administration; and (d) A retired Police officer of minimum of scale of Joint Commissioner/Inspector-General of Police or corresponding rank. In case a woman is appointed as Chairman/ Chairperson, then it shall not be mandatory to have a woman Member.	(i) The Authority shall inquire into allegations of “serious misconduct” against police personnel, as detailed below, either suo motu or on a complaint received from any of the following:- a) a victim or any person on his/her behalf on a sworn affidavit; b) the National Human Rights Commission; or c) Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary(Home), GNCT of Delhi. (ii) Any complaint not covered in category (i) above, may also be referred to Police Complaint Authority by Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi.
Odisha	Data unavailable.
Puducherry	NA	NA	NA
Punjab	Data unavailable.
Rajasthan	Data unavailable.
Sikkim	Data unavailable.
Tamil Nadu	NA	NA	Assigned to Home Ministry.
Telengana	Data unavailable.
Tripura	Data unavailable.
Uttar Pradesh	NA	NA	NA
Uttarakhand	Data unavailable.
West Bengal	NA	NA	Assigned to Home Ministry.

International Experience

UK Independent Office for Police Conduct

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) exists to increase public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. It also investigates serious complaints and allegations of misconduct against the police and handles appeals. It is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Home Office. It has the following powers:

• a power to initiate its own investigations without relying on a force to record and refer;
• powers to determine appeals and recommend remedies;
• a shortened process for deciding whether a case should go to a disciplinary hearing.

Many provisions of the IOPC are similar to India. However, by having a national structure, the Office ensures consistency in application throughout. India's fragmented police laws allow some states to skirt the Supreme Court's direction, or make a defunct PCA. In this context, nationalizing the Authority via a Constitutional Amendment may improve police accountability.

South Africa Independent Police Investigative Directorate

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) is an independent police complaints body that must investigate any alleged complaint of misconduct or offence committed by a member of the police service. The IPID must be established at national and provincial levels. The IPID was established in terms of Section 206 (6) of the Constitution of South Africa. The powers of the Directorate include:

• To provide an independent oversight of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and Municipal Police Services (MPS),
• To provide an independent and unbaised investigation of criminal offences allegedly committed by SAPS and MPS,
• To make recommendations with regard to any findings under an investigation and how people should be disciplined,
• To make SAPS and MPS more accountable and transparent as required by the Constitution.

Uniquely, the IPID also has the power to make recommendations for disciplining police officers. Unlike the PCA, it can ensure that action is carried out after its investigation into supposed misconduct, improving political insulation. Further, being statutorily authorized, the IPID has many safeguards that can be emulated. For example, investigators must inform persons of their right against self-incrimination, which is extended to such disciplinary investigation. This can also be added in Indian states' PCA rules.

Research that engages with 'PCA'

Police Reforms in India, 2017 (PRS Legislative Research)

PRS Legislative Research undertook a comprehensive analysis of police reforms in 2017. They included a section on "Policy Accountability". As per this study, various kinds of complaints are made against the police including complaints of unwarranted arrests, unlawful searches, torture and custodial rapes. To check against this, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Supreme Court observed that there is a need to have an independent complaints authority to inquire into cases of police misconduct. This may be because the political executive and internal police oversight mechanisms may favour law enforcement authorities, and not be able to form an independent and critical judgement.

Among the 33 states/UTs that have created a Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the composition of these authorities is often at variance with the Model Police Act, 2006 and the Supreme Court directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. For example, district level authorities in Bihar and Gujarat only have government and police officials. Further, in many states complaints authorities do not have the power to issue binding recommendations.

Police complaints authorities in India status, gaps & challenges, 2024 (CHRI)

In 2024, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) issued a report on "Police complaints authorities in India status, gaps & challenges." The report provided a status update on whether PCAs have been operationalized in most states, what their mandate, rules of procedure, infrastructural capabilities, etc. are. On the basis of this, they made the following recommendations:

1. To Government of India and all State Governments:
   1. Establish/re-establish State Police Complaints Authorities in line with the 2006 Supreme Court directive whose standards were further fleshed out in the Model Police Bill, 2015;
   2. Ensure they remain independent in terms of their composition and functioning, that their mandate is not diluted, and that they have resources for independent investigations;
   3. Empower them to enforce accountability for police misconduct by making their recommendations binding;
   4. Ensure vacancies are filled without delay;
   5. Allocate adequate resources to enable their effective functioning.
2. To State Police Complaints Authorities:
   1. Develop Rules of Procedure and specify time-frames for completing inquiries;
   2. Conduct outreach and sensitization, and develop a functioning website with up to date information.
3. To State Police Departments:
   1. Take timely departmental action against police personnel based on SCPAs’ recommendations and regularly update the SPCAs about action undertaken;
   2. Share up-to-date information about the SPCAs’ role, mandate, procedure to make a complaint and their contact details in all police stations and other administrative offices of the Police Department.
4. To Civil Society:
   1. Monitor the working of PCAs regularly and systematically- drawing attention to threats to independence and prolonged vacancies;
   2. Engage with the general recommendations for enhancing police accountability issued by the PCAs;
   3. Support victims and their families in submitting complaints before the PCAs.

Reforms in PCA, 2024 (Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy)

The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy published a blog on "Reforms in Police Complaint Authority – A way to prevent custodial violence" in 2024. The author therein consider Maharashtra's recent legal reforms that limit the SPCA's authority. While doing so, the author makes the following recommendations:

1. Empowering SPCA: The PCA’s reports should be made binding on state authorities, and should be allowed to file FIRs against police personnel involved in torturing inmates. The State Government must act on the SPCA’s reports and take disciplinary action or initiate criminal investigations against police officers.
2. Ensuring Independence of the PCA: The selection process of PCA members should be transparent and must adhere to the guidelines of the Supreme Court and the Model Act. The panel for selection of SPCA members must be set up promptly and independent members having expert knowledge of law, human rights, criminology etc., should be included on the panel.
3. Improving Accountability: Reforms including rights of complainants to track progress in complaints, departmental inquiries, or criminal investigations, should be incorporated into the state’s legislation to ensure implementation of SPCA reports. The SPCA should also have an independent website where annual reports, mechanism to file complaints, mechanism to track status of complaint are all available.
4. Power to award compensation: The SPCA should be authorised to award compensation to victims in cases of police misconduct and to the families of victims of custodial deaths. This power to award compensation will also decrease pendency in courts.
5. Creating Awareness: The state’s Home Department should undertake initiatives to create public awareness about the functions and powers of the SPCA.

Issues & Challenges

Legal and Institutional Gaps

Despite clear Supreme Court directives, PCA frameworks are riddled with loopholes and poor drafting. Most states’ police laws deviate from the Model Act. For instance, many allow serving officers to sit on PCAs or omit the requirement of civil-society members.  Only a few states explicitly grant binding powers to PCA recommendations; most treat them as mere suggestions . The lack of statutory procedures or mandatory timelines means PCAs can delay indefinitely or be ignored. Even when a PCA is set up, its enabling legislation often fails to specify key functions. Some states only empower the SPCA to monitor inquiries (not initiate them) or limit the definition of “misconduct” narrowly.

In a 2024 survey, CHRI found at least 9 SPCAs where all members (including Chair) were serving officers or bureaucrats, directly violating the Supreme Court’s mandate. Only Delhi’s SPCA even had a genuine independent civil-society member. Similarly, PRS cites that district PCAs in Gujarat and Bihar contain only government and police officials, excluding any civilian perspective.  Without credible outsiders, these PCAs cannot be seen as impartial.

Infrastructure & Constitution Issues

Many states have not constituted the State and District PCAs provided in law. Even where PCAs are “established”, they are often non-functional: key positions remain vacant for years. CHRI notes that public interest litigation was needed in Maharashtra and Karnataka just to fill vacancies for PCA chairpersons. Vacancies and delays in appointments (of judges and members) render many PCAs dormant.

Most PCAs also lack staff, funds, or offices to function.  There are no dedicated investigators provided (despite the Model Bill’s recommendation).  Thus, any inquiry defaults to police investigators, which creates an obvious conflict. CHRI points out the absurdity: “in the absence of a team of investigators, the PCA bodies are relying on the State police to inquire into complaints of misconduct against its own personnel.” Furthermore, PCAs usually have no budget and no case management systems. Their proceedings often follow ad hoc procedures with limited transparency. This means inquiries drag on, victims lose faith, and many complaints go unaddressed.

Unfavorable Outcomes

Generally, PCAs face resistance from police leadership and politicians. Multiple experts note a “culture of impunity” that views PCAs as an unwelcome intrusion. For instance, in 2022, the Gujarat SPCA found only one among 839 complaints it had received during 2022 within its jurisdiction. Similarly, in 2021, the Delhi PCA saw a total of 7,494 complaints, which resulted in only 318 officers being suspended, and 48 being dismissed from serve. Therefore, PCAs clearly show deference for the status quo.

Lack of Execution

Perhaps most demoralizing is that PCA findings are often ignored.  In almost all states, the PCA can only recommend action; the government may accept or reject it. CHRI’s 2020 analysis found only 9 states where PCA recommendations are legally binding on the government. In most others, a government department or police chief can simply “file the report and take action deemed appropriate”, which could be nothing. Even among the few states with binding clauses, loopholes exist. For example, Maharashtra’s law allows the government to overrule the PCA if it issues a written counter-order. As CHRI bluntly observes, without binding power “the police complaints authorities seem to have been designed to fail.”

Way Forward

1. Strengthening Legal Mandate: States must amend laws or issue clear notifications to fully implement the Supreme Court and Model Act standards. This includes specifying PCA jurisdiction (custodial harm, brutality, extortion, etc.), prohibiting any serving officer from being a member on the authority, and requiring transparent selection of members.
2. Provision of Adequate Resources: Each PCA should have a dedicated secretariat, staff investigators, office space and budget. CHRI suggests “an investigation wing headed by an IG” to staff state PCAs.  Without independent investigators, police cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. Funding must come from the state budget, and vacancies must be filled promptly.
3. Binding Recommendations: A core fix is to make PCA decisions binding on the government/police. The Model Act 2015 specifies that once a PCA orders a departmental inquiry or chargesheet, the police must proceed with it. Some states like Assam, Kerala, etc. already follow this practice, and others must follow suit. This will ensure PCA findings are not simply shelved.
4. Public Engagement and Transparency: PCAs should hold regular sittings and publish annual reports (with numbers of complaints received/disposed and actions recommended).  Civil society participation can be increased by requiring at least one NGO member.  Publicizing the PCA’s existence and process will encourage more complaints and oversight.

Related Terms

National Human Rights Commission, police violence, police, FIR, suo moto, etc.