The Assam Police Manual: Historical Continuity, Judicial Scrutiny, and Contemporary Relevance

The Assam Police Manual: Historical Continuity, Judicial Scrutiny, and Contemporary Relevance

1. Introduction

The Assam Police Manual (hereinafter “the Manual”) has functioned for more than a century as the primary executive instrument regulating recruitment, discipline, performance appraisal and quotidian administration of the Assam Police. Yet its continued enforceability, especially after the advent of the Assam Police Act, 2007, remains the subject of persistent judicial interrogation. This article critically examines the Manual’s normative content, traces its evolution, parses key judicial pronouncements—most recently The State of Assam v. Binod Kumar (2024)—and evaluates its compatibility with constitutional and statutory developments in Indian policing jurisprudence.

2. Historical Background and Normative Architecture

2.1 Colonial Genesis

Promulgated under the Police Act, 1861, the Manual codified colonial administrative wisdom for a paramilitary constabulary. Its parts I–VI deal respectively with organisation, investigation, discipline, accounts, records, and miscellaneous matters. Rule 63(iii) prescribes a multi-tier scheme for initiation, review and acceptance of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Superintendents of Police (SPs), while Rule 66 elaborates the disciplinary procedure premised on Section 7 of the 1861 Act.[1]

2.2 Transition to Post-Independence Policing

After independence, the Manual continued in force by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution, albeit subject to “existing law” being eclipsed by subsequent legislation. Inter alia, it interfaced with:[2]

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (regarding investigation diaries and arrests),
  • The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 (concerning disturbed-area policing), and
  • Service-law frameworks such as the General Financial Rules, 1939, the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and central disciplinary codes (e.g., CCS & CCA Rules, 1965).

3. Doctrinal Challenges Prior to the Assam Police Act, 2007

3.1 Disciplinary Jurisdiction under Rule 66

Judicial scrutiny of proceedings conducted under Rule 66 produced divergent lines of authority:

  • In Kanak Chandra Bairagi v. Superintendent of Police (1955) the Gauhati High Court upheld gubernatorial power under Rule 66’s revisional clause to enhance punishment, emphasising the breadth of the Governor’s revisory jurisdiction.[3]
  • Conversely, procedural infirmities—such as denial of witnesses—have vitiated enquiries. In Balabhadra Nath Roy v. DIGP (1987) the Court set aside punishment where defence witnesses were arbitrarily excluded, underscoring natural-justice requirements embedded in Rule 66.[4]
  • The entitlement to a defence assistant was expressly rejected in Matoam Ibohal Singh v. State of Manipur (2008), the Court applying the maxim expressum facit cessare tacitum to hold that the Manual’s silence excludes such right, unlike Rule 14(8) of the CCS & CCA Rules.[5]

3.2 Police Records and Accountability

Rules 52-57 of Part V mandate meticulous maintenance of General Diaries. In In re Md. Fakhrul Islam (2012) the Gauhati High Court lamented non-compliance, observing that absence of authentic records “negates the rule of law.”[6] The judgment illustrates how procedural provisions in the Manual interface with constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22.

4. The Assam Police Act, 2007: A Paradigm Shift

4.1 Statutory Supremacy and Section 14(2)

Enacted to implement the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh directives, the Assam Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter “the 2007 Act”) institutes modern accountability structures. Section 14(2) proscribes external interference in “organisation or administration of the police force” save as provided by law.[7] By repealing the Police Act, 1861 in toto within Assam, the 2007 Act recalibrates the Manual’s legal foundation.

4.2 Rule 63(iii) Litigation: The State of Assam v. Binod Kumar (2024)

The Supreme Court in Binod Kumar affirmed the Gauhati High Court’s invalidation of Rule 63(iii), holding that initiation of SPs’ ACRs by Deputy Commissioners violated both Section 14(2) of the 2007 Act and the IPS (Performance Appraisal) Rules, 2007—which require reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to belong to the same service.[8] The Court emphasised that Deputy Commissioners, competent in only one of twenty assessed domains, lacked the institutional vantage to appraise SPs holistically.

5. Continuing Operation of Other Parts of the Manual

5.1 Doctrine of Repugnancy and “Conditional Survival”

Following Binod Kumar, only provisions directly inconsistent with the 2007 Act (or other parliamentary legislation) stand eclipsed. Pandian Chemicals principles indicate that subordinate legislation survives pro tanto unless expressly or impliedly repealed.

5.2 Inter-State Adoption: Meghalaya Example

Meghalaya, carved out of Assam, adopted Parts I–VI of the Manual mutatis mutandis pending its own Police Manual.[9] In Satya Narayan Roy v. State of Meghalaya (2021) the High Court upheld disciplinary action grounded in Rule 66, citing a 2015 notification extending the Manual post-enactment of the Meghalaya Police Act, 2010. The case demonstrates the Manual’s trans-border influence and raises federalism questions regarding police administration.

6. Interface with Human Rights and Public-Order Statutes

Policing in Assam often occurs within “disturbed areas” proclaimed under AFSPA 1958 and the Assam Disturbed Areas Act 1955. Constitutional challenges in Peoples Union for Human Rights v. Union of India (1991) invoked the Manual’s investigation norms to argue for civilian oversight.[10] Similarly, Indrajit Barua v. State of Assam (1983) examined Section 4 of the Disturbed Areas Act, articulating proportional-force standards relevant to Manual directives on use of force.

7. Procedural Safeguards and Reform Imperatives

  1. Codification of Natural-Justice Prerogatives. The absence of a statutory right to defence assistance under Rule 66 warrants legislative amendment aligning with central service-law norms.
  2. Digitalisation of Police Records. The lacuna spotlighted in Md. Fakhrul Islam necessitates e-GD (electronic General Diary) systems to assure transparency.
  3. Harmonisation with Modern Appraisal Frameworks. Post-Binod Kumar, the Manual must adopt IPS appraisal templates, eliminating lingering colonial hierarchy models.

8. Conclusion

The Assam Police Manual embodies a living legal instrument oscillating between historical continuity and constitutional modernity. While core disciplinary and administrative mechanisms subsist, any provision that undermines statutory supremacy or contemporary accountability norms is vulnerable to judicial excision. The Supreme Court’s 2024 pronouncement is both a reaffirmation of statutory hierarchy and a clarion call for comprehensive revision of the Manual. Strategic legislative intervention—grounded in human-rights sensitivity, technological integration and doctrinal clarity—is imperative for aligning Assam’s policing framework with twenty-first-century rule-of-law expectations.

Footnotes

  1. Assam Police Manual, Part III, Rules 63(iii) & 66.
  2. Constitution of India, Art. 372.
  3. Kanak Chandra Bairagi v. Superintendent of Police, AIR 1955 Ass 240.
  4. Shri Balabhadra Nath Roy v. DIGP, 1987 SCC OnLine Gau 67.
  5. Matoam Ibohal Singh v. State of Manipur, (2008) Gau HC.
  6. In re Md. Fakhrul Islam, (2012) GLT 994.
  7. Assam Police Act, 2007, s. 14(2).
  8. The State of Assam v. Binod Kumar, (2024) SC.
  9. Government of Meghalaya Notification No. HPL.181/2003/140, dated 09-07-2015.
  10. Peoples Union for Human Rights v. Union of India, 1991 Gau HC.