Office Vandalism, Political Detentions Expose the Gap Between Policing and Accountability

Masked men ransacked the Camac Street office of Trinamool Congress general secretary Abhishek Banerjee in Kolkata at around 4.30 a.m. on September 3, 2026, removing equipment and shattering glass. Kolkata Police later arrested six residents of Howrah district in connection with the incident. In a separate development, Telangana BJP president N. Ramchander Rao and several Bharatiya Yuva Morcha activists were detained by Hyderabad police while attempting to march to the Secretariat with a representation signed by over eight lakh students demanding clearance of pending fee reimbursement dues estimated at around ₹15,000 crore. Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar condemned the detentions as "illegal arrests." The two incidents, unfolding on the same day in different States, raise a structural question: who polices the police? ## From Vandalism to Custody: Two Sides of the Same Coin The Kolkata incident, captured on CCTV, shows masked men emerging from the lift and wandering through the office premises. Abhishek Banerjee alleged that "BJP goons looted documents and equipment; they also vandalised our office after taking the Kolkata Police into confidence." He urged the Calcutta High Court to "take serious note and act to uphold the rule of law." The phrase "taking the police into confidence" is significant — it implies prior knowledge or acquiescence by law enforcement, which would transform the episode from ordinary vandalism into a governance failure. The Telangana episode shows a different but related pattern. BJP leaders claim they sought a prior appointment with Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy to submit a memorandum and were denied one. Detention followed. The protest concerned a tangible welfare failure — fee reimbursement arrears owed to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, a scheme that directly affects nearly 40 lakh students. When grievance redressal channels close, protests fill the gap, and police action becomes the State's first rather than last resort. - The Camac Street office vandalism occurred around 4.30 a.m. on September 3, 2026 - Six accused, all from Howrah district, were arrested; most stolen articles were recovered outside the premises - In Telangana, the BJP alleged pending fee reimbursement dues of around ₹15,000 crore affecting nearly 40 lakh students - Kunal Agarwal, Additional Commissioner of Kolkata Police (Crime), briefed the media on the arrests - BJP's Telangana representation was signed by over eight lakh students ## Police Reforms: A Four-Decade Wait India's policing architecture remains tethered to the Police Act of 1861, enacted under colonial rule. The Prakash Singh Case (2006), a landmark Supreme Court directive, ordered States to insulate police from political interference through seven specific measures — including a fixed two-year tenure for the Director General of Police, separation of investigation from law and order, and the creation of a Police Establishment Board to handle transfers and promotions. Compliance has been abysmal; a 2018–19 study found that nearly all States had disregarded the directive in spirit. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee on Police Reforms (2005) expanded this blueprint, urging separation of investigation and law-and-order functions. Its recommendations materialised in the Police (Amendment) Act 2006, which created Police Establishment Boards and the Delhi Police Complaints Authority. The earlier Khosla Committee (1972) had first proposed State-level Police Complaints Authorities, but the architecture remains half-built. :::callout Did You Know? The Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh Case had set a deadline of December 31, 2006 for all States to implement reforms — yet two decades later, a majority of States continue to record the DGP's tenure in ad hoc extensions, bypassing the fixed-tenure norm that lies at the heart of insulating police from political control. ::: ## The Accountability Gap in Practice The contrast between the two incidents reveals the structural problem. In Kolkata, the question is whether local police were complicit, indifferent, or simply slow. In Telangana, the question is whether police acted as the government's tool to suppress a legitimate welfare protest. Neither question has a clear statutory answer because the mechanism for independent police accountability — the State-level Police Complaints Authorities envisioned by the 2006 Amendment — functions unevenly across States. The deeper issue is who governs the governors of law and order. Under the Seventh Schedule, "Police" falls under the State List, meaning each State government controls its force. The Centre's role is limited to advisories under Article 257. This constitutional design, intended to preserve federalism, also creates a vacuum when State governments themselves are perceived as the violators. The Right to Information Act 2005 has partially filled this gap by allowing citizens to query police records, but RTI cannot compel structural reform. ## The Economic Cost of Non-Reform Governance failures in policing carry measurable economic costs. When fee reimbursement dues remain unpaid for years, students from OBC, SC, and ST backgrounds face disrupted education. When political offices are vandalised, insurance costs and security expenditures rise. When police are deployed for protest management rather than crime prevention, conviction rates fall — India's average conviction rate hovers around 40–45 per cent for IPC cases, reflecting the systemic under-investment in investigation infrastructure. The Prakash Singh directives were meant to professionalise the force, separate crime-fighting from political errands, and ensure that the officer investigating an offence does not simultaneously manage the minister's public events. Without these separations, the police remain vulnerable to becoming instruments of the ruling party — a charge levelled in both Kolkata and Hyderabad this week. ## What the Calcutta High Court Can Do Abhishek Banerjee has urged the judiciary to act. The Calcutta High Court can indeed issue directions under Article 226, and suo motu cognisance of attacks on political offices has historical precedent. However, individual interventions cannot substitute for structural reform. The Srikrishna Committee's most important contribution was its insistence that complaints against police be investigated by an authority independent of the police hierarchy — a principle still awaiting full implementation. Until the gap between constitutional promise and policing practice is bridged, episodes like Camac Street and the Telangana detentions will recur.