The Film’s Narrative and Its Real‑World Echoes

Today the Director General of Punjab Police warned filmmaker Dara Singh that releasing his film across multiple districts could spark riots. The warning underscores the clash between artistic ventures and police oversight, a tension that resurfaces in discussions of the Prakash Singh reforms on police accountability. The film had already secured clearance in four districts before the warning was issued.

•Police Procedural “Uyir”: What the Film Reveals About Accountability Gaps in Indian Policing

Police Procedural “Uyir”: What the Film Reveals About Accountability Gaps in Indian Policing

The Malayalam thriller Uyir – co‑written by serving officer Shaji Maarad and released this month – follows probationary sub‑inspector Ajeeb Rahman as he tracks a missing woman’s body from an abandoned well across several states. While the narrative attempts to blend personal trauma with a multi‑state homicide probe, critics argue that the film’s treatment mirrors the very systemic lapses it dramatises: fragmented investigations, opaque record‑keeping and limited oversight of junior officers.

Uyir opens with a skeletal corpse recovered from a well in Kerala, prompting Ajeeb, fresh from police academy training, to shoulder a case that quickly spirals beyond his jurisdiction.

▸Shaji Maarad, an active police officer, contributed to the screenplay, lending procedural authenticity.
▸Roshan Mathew portrays Ajeeb Rahman, a probationary sub‑inspector navigating inter‑state coordination.
▸The plot hinges on the discovery of the body in an abandoned well, a motif reminiscent of several unsolved cases reported in the past decade.

The film’s pacing, however, delays the officer’s personal backstory until the climax, a storytelling choice that critics say dilutes the urgency of institutional reform. By the time the trauma is linked to the case, the procedural hurdles – jurisdictional hand‑offs, delayed forensic reports and lack of victim‑family counselling – have already unfolded on screen.

Constitutional and Statutory Foundations for Police Accountability

India’s Constitution obliges the state to protect citizens’ life and liberty, a duty expanded by judicial interpretation.

▸Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which the Supreme Court has read to include protection from police excesses.
▸The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers citizens to request police records, yet many states invoke exemptions for “law‑and‑order” matters, curtailing transparency.
▸The 1970 National Police Commission advocated a three‑tier police hierarchy to ensure local accountability, a recommendation still largely unimplemented.

These provisions collectively form the legal scaffolding for police reform, but their efficacy hinges on robust implementation mechanisms.

Landmark Judicial Interventions and Reform Recommendations

The Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh judgment (2006) marked a watershed, directing the Centre to institute State Police Complaints Authorities (SPCAs) and to standardise recruitment, training and promotion.

▸The Police Reforms Committee Report (2006) suggested a minimum of 200 officers per 100,000 population, a benchmark yet to be uniformly achieved.
▸It also recommended periodic performance audits of police units, a practice rarely institutionalised at the state level.
▸The Court mandated the creation of a National Police Commission, a body whose recommendations remain largely advisory.

These directives underscore the constitutional duty to align policing with the DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy), which enjoins the state to promote justice and equality.

Implementation Gaps and Last‑Mile Challenges

Despite the judicial pronouncements, on‑ground realities often diverge sharply from policy intent.

▸SPCAs exist in only 12 of 28 states, and many lack the financial autonomy to investigate complaints independently.
▸Data on police‑related deaths remain fragmented; the Ministry of Home Affairs has not mandated a uniform reporting format, impeding evidence‑based reforms.
▸Rural police stations frequently operate with a single constable, far below the 200‑officer benchmark, leading to delayed response times and over‑reliance on senior officers for basic investigations.

These deficiencies echo the film’s depiction of a lone officer grappling with procedural inertia, highlighting the need for systemic overhaul rather than isolated training modules.

Did You Know? The Supreme Court’s 2006 directive mandated that every state police force maintain a “public grievance redressal mechanism” within 90 days of the order, yet as of 2024, only half of the states have operationalised such portals.

Towards a More Transparent Policing Model

Bridging the gap between constitutional guarantees and policing practice requires a multi‑pronged approach. First, expanding the scope of the Right to Information Act 2005 to include routine police records would enable civil‑society monitoring. Second, fully operationalising SPCAs with statutory powers and dedicated budgets can ensure impartial inquiry into misconduct. Third, leveraging technology – such as body‑cameras and digital case‑management systems – can reduce reliance on manual hand‑overs that currently stall investigations.

If these measures are pursued earnestly, the narrative of Uyir could shift from a cautionary tale to a blueprint for accountable policing, aligning cinematic storytelling with the nation’s constitutional promise of justice.