Govt. to spend Rs 24,000 crore to modernise police force

Why in the News

The Union government has told the Supreme Court that it has begun implementing an umbrella Police Modernisation Mission worth Rs 24,000 crore over the next five years. The mission is intended to strengthen the internal security capabilities of State police forces and the Central Armed Police Forces through greater use of technology. The disclosure was made in a suo motu proceeding begun in 2025 after the Court took note of a report on non functional closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras at police stations in Udaipur. In the same proceeding the Court is reviewing compliance with its 2021 judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh, which mandated CCTV cameras in police stations. A scheme to install more technology is therefore being announced inside a case about technology already mandated and not working.

What is the Police Modernisation Mission?

1. Its form: It is an umbrella scheme, meaning several police modernisation components are funded through a single mission rather than as separate schemes.
2. Its size and horizon: The outlay is Rs 24,000 crore, to be spent over five years.
3. Who it covers: It targets the internal security capabilities of both State police forces and the Central Armed Police Forces.
4. Its stated route: The capability gain is to come through greater use of technology, which is the only delivery mechanism named in the submission.

Why was the disclosure made in a court proceeding?

1. The proceeding was begun by the Court itself: The suo motu case was initiated in 2025 after the Court took note of a media report on non functional CCTV cameras at Udaipur police stations.
2. The Court widened it into a compliance review: It sought compliance reports from the Centre, the States and the Union Territories on the installation and functioning of cameras.
3. The Bench: The matter is before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, with the Centre represented by an Additional Solicitor-General.
4. The mission answers the compliance question with an outlay: The Centre’s response to a record of equipment not working is a larger programme to buy equipment, and no separate maintenance or functioning guarantee was placed before the Court.

What did Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh require?

1. Cameras at specified locations: The 2021 judgment mandated CCTV cameras at key locations in police stations, including lock ups and the rooms of inspectors and sub-inspectors.
2. Cameras of a specified capability: The directions required night vision and audio recording, so that an interrogation is recorded and not merely observed.
3. Footage retention: Recordings were to be preserved for a stated minimum period, so that a complaint filed months later can still be tested against the record.
4. Oversight bodies: State level and district level oversight committees were to be constituted to purchase, maintain and monitor the systems and to review footage.
5. Notice to the public: Police stations were to display notices telling visitors that the premises are under camera cover and that a complaint of human rights violation may be made.

Challenges to the Police Modernisation Mission

1. Modernisation money has historically gone unspent: Releases under police modernisation schemes stall on State matching shares and pending utilisation certificates. Eg. Successive Comptroller and Auditor General audits have flagged underutilisation of police modernisation grants by States.
   The Fix: Release tranches against verified physical milestones, meaning equipment installed and functioning, rather than against expenditure statements.
2. Central money buys equipment, not reform: Police is a State subject under Entry 2 of the State List, so a central mission can fund hardware without touching recruitment, tenure or accountability. Eg. Directions in Prakash Singh versus Union of India (2006) on fixed tenure and a State Security Commission remain only partly implemented across States.
   The Fix: Condition a share of each State’s mission grant on enactment of the police board and fixed tenure directions.
3. Technology fails at the point of maintenance: Installed systems stop working for want of annual maintenance contracts, spares and power backup, and the capital grant does not cover them. Eg. Audits have found Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems terminals installed but not in use at a large number of police stations.
   The Fix: Fund a five year maintenance and consumables line inside each equipment sanction, instead of leaving it as a separate State liability.
4. Manpower shortfall caps what technology can deliver: A camera or a database still needs an officer to operate, review and act on it, and State forces run well below sanctioned strength. Eg. Bureau of Police Research and Development data records an actual police strength close to 150 personnel per lakh population, against the United Nations recommended figure of 222.
   The Fix: Tie mission approval to a State recruitment schedule closing sanctioned vacancies across the same five years.
5. Surveillance capacity grows faster than the oversight around it: Equipment installed for accountability also expands the force’s own recording and identification capability, with no independent auditor of its use. Eg. Access logs for police station footage are held and reviewed by the same force whose conduct the footage records.
   The Fix: Place footage access logs and retention compliance under an independent State level oversight body publishing an annual report.

Conclusion

The mission has moved from announcement to implementation, and it was disclosed in a proceeding about equipment already mandated and not functioning. Buying capability and sustaining it are different problems, and only the first has an outlay attached to it. The next point to watch is the compliance reports the Court has sought from the Centre, the States and the Union Territories, which is where the gap between equipment sanctioned and equipment working becomes visible.

Back2Basics: Central Armed Police Forces

1. What they are: Seven armed forces of the Union under the Ministry of Home Affairs, distinct both from the armed forces under the Ministry of Defence and from State police.
2. The seven forces: Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Sashastra Seema Bal, Assam Rifles and the National Security Guard.
3. How they are used: They are deployed to States on requisition for internal security duty, election duty and disaster response, and guard specified international border sectors.
4. Command and recruitment: Each is headed by a Director General, with officer recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission and other ranks through the Staff Selection Commission.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2023, GS3, 15 marks] What are the internal security challenges being faced by India? Give out the role of Central Intelligence and Investigative Agencies tasked to counter such threats.”