In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that State Security Commissions (SSC) be set up to oversee police functioning. The SSCs are to evaluate the performance of the state police, prepare a report thereon and place it before the State Legislature. According to the apex court directives the SSC must be chaired by the Home Minister of the state and must have on board the Leader of the Opposition, the DGP as ex-officio secretary and five other independent members drawn from civil society and to be nominated by the Governor of the State.
Meghalaya set up the first SSC in 2009 which was chaired by the Home Minister and included the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Director General of Police as the Ex Officio Secretary. But of the five independent members, three were retired bureaucrats, one a retired DGP and the last was the Chairperson of State Commission for Women (a state government appointed post hence hardly an independent member). Hence the Meghalaya SSC was heavily loaded in favour of the Government and there was hardly an independent voice to bring in the required checks and balances. So while the State Government has fulfilled the SC directed mandate it intentionally created a weak and voiceless Commission. Independent members in the Commissions are to be selected by an empanelment process and not appointed directly by the state government. The complete lack of transparency on how non-official members are chosen reveals that the political executive does not wish to let go of its tenacious grip on police affairs in the country.
The SSC is intended to prevent the interference of elected politicians and bureaucrats into the everyday management and functioning of the police as this weakens its leadership, creates uncertainty of direction, breaks chains of command, obscures accountability, destroys discipline and divides loyalties all down the line. Above all the SSC is meant to insulate police from arbitrary transfers and to ensure that whoever is appointed DGP merits that post and it is not done on political considerations.
The present government has only followed on the heels of its predecessors. It has not made public as yet who the members of the present SSC are. The SSC should be having a say in the appointment of a stop-gap DGP and should not have allowed someone with a criminal record in the adjoining state to hold the top post even for a brief period. But that was allowed to happen and interestingly there is no public outrage. And now another controversy ensues about the final appointment of a DGP!