- The Supreme Court's directives in the Prakash Singh case laid down parameters for police reforms. - Directives included establishing commissions/ boards/authorities and ensuring minimum tenure for officers. - The minimum tenure mandated for officers on operational posts was two years, not five years.
In May 2008, the Supreme Court of India laid down six parameters to make the police effective, accountable and insulated from political interference and set up a monitoring committee to ensure that states implement police reforms. Which one of the following is not a directive of the apex court in this regard ?
Asked in UPSC CAPF 2009 · Topic: The Supreme Court (Landmark Judgments and Doctrines)
Show answer
Answer: C. Fixing a minimum tenure of five years for police officers on operational posts unless they face disciplinary proceedings or were convicted in a criminal offence
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- Which one of the following cases in the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of 'creamy layer' among the backward classes ?
- Which one of the following judgments declared that the Parliament has NO power to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India ?
- Which one of the following judgements is associated with the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of Judges in the appointment and transfer of higher judiciary?
- In 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In which case did the Supreme Court deliver this landmark judgment ?
- In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court give directions that statutory status should be conferred upon the Central Vigilance Commission ?
- Who was the dissenting Judge in the Apex Court's Sabarimala verdict?
- The Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ in
- The status of women in Indian Society is glorified by a judgement of a Court in September, 2003. The Court is
