In 2006 the Supreme Court ordered seven police reforms: six for states and UTs, one for the Union. Compliance is still partial in 2026.
Passed after the Revolt of 1857, the Police Act put the force under executive control. Independent India kept the framework.
After the Emergency, the Centre set up a commission under Dharma Vira to examine how the police were run and held to account.
The commission proposed fixed tenures, a State Security Commission, a complaints system and a new Police Act. Most of it was shelved.
Prakash Singh and N.K. Singh, with Common Cause, filed a PIL asking the court to make governments act on the reform reports.
Ribeiro (1998-99), Padmanabhaiah (2000), Malimath (2000-03) and the Mooshahary review (2005) added to the pile of recommendations.
Thirty years of reports before the court stepped in.
A bench led by CJI Y.K. Sabharwal ordered seven police reforms, to apply until governments passed suitable laws.
Six for states and Union Territories, one for the Union.
A State Security Commission; a DGP picked from a UPSC panel of three with a two-year term; two-year terms for IGs, DIGs, SPs and SHOs.
Separate investigation wings in big cities, a Police Establishment Board for postings, and state and district Police Complaints Authorities.
The Centre was told to set up a National Security Commission to shortlist chiefs of central police organisations, with two-year terms.
The judgment wanted compliance by 31 December 2006. The court refused to defer it and set 31 March 2007 as the final deadline.
Several states sought review of the judgment; the petitions were dismissed. The petitioners moved contempt applications over non-compliance.
The court set up a three-member committee under retired judge K.T. Thomas to check each state's compliance.
The committee found practically no state had fully complied, and that bodies on paper often lacked the powers the court intended.
Existence alone does not establish compliance.
A bench led by CJI Dipak Misra told states to send names to the UPSC three months ahead, appoint from its panel and never name an acting DGP.
A bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said DGP panels must be drawn purely on merit from officers with at least six months of service left.
The process under the 2006, 2018 and 2019 orders.
The court said states were delaying proposals and running forces with acting DGPs, and let the UPSC take delays straight to the court.
Deadlines, monitoring and the DGP fight.
Anniversary commentary, including in Bar and Bench, said states are only partly compliant. It is analysis, not a new court ruling.
Six goals behind the seven directives.
Read the complete story, FAQs and key facts.