The Nepal government’s attempt to amend the Nepal Police Act-1955 has raised eyebrows among police officers, who have questioned the bill registered by the government in Parliament for further deliberation.

On September 26, the Supreme Court ordered that provisions on the appointment, recruitment, retirement, and other matters related to the police be included in the Act within this fiscal year.

Acting on that, the Ministry of Home Affairs registered a ‘Bill to amend and consolidate the laws related to the Nepal Police’ in Parliament on January 28. However, police officials are unhappy with some of the bill’s provisions regarding the mobilisation, control, direction, and supervision of personnel. The bill states that the Ministry of Home Affairs will mobilise, control, direct and supervise Nepal Police.

“Police personnel shall be under the control, direction and supervision of the chief district officer to ensure the district’s peace, security and order, and the prevention and control of crime,” the bill reads.

“If orders or instructions need to be given to police personnel to maintain law and order in the district, and the prevention and control of crime, the chief district officer (CDO) should order them through the police chief assigned at that station.”

As the home ministry is responsible for mobilising the police, why are police officials objecting to the bill?

An officer at the Nepal Police headquarters, on the condition of anonymity, argues that police are only mobilised under the police chief of the district. The bill registered in parliament provides that the home ministry directly mobilises the police, which they do not want.

“The ministry can supervise, but only the existing law and IGP should mobilise the police force,” the officer emphasised.

As prevailing laws give the CDO the authority to maintain law and order in the district, the police force’s refusal to be mobilised under his leadership is ridiculous, said Umesh Mainali, a former Home secretary.

Mainali said that in a country with civilian supremacy, civil servants mobilise security agencies, and the country follows the same precedent.

“But they could argue that an order should be hierarchical, that an order should follow a chain of command,” Mainali said.

However, former deputy inspector general (DIG) Hemanta Malla argues that the police force is not trying to challenge civil supremacy. Still, the force’s reservations over the bill concern the use of authority. Although, by law, the Inspector General can transfer the Superintendent of Police (SP), this practice has not been followed.

“When the Police Act was enacted in 1955, the police were considered only as an instrument to impose law and order, but it evolved as a service over time. After it developed into a service force, it was given the power to look after, control and supervise, while the power to mobilise was with the Cabinet, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the CDO,” Malla said. “However, the police opposed the current bill, which seeks to redevelop the force as an instrument without much agency.”

Malla added that the bill concerns serving personnel as it says the home ministry is in charge of police mobilisation.

Concerns have also been raised about potential political interference in the selection process for the Inspector General (IG) and other provisions in both security agencies.

Another police officer, who prefers to remain anonymous as he is not authorised to speak to the media, says that the bill registered in Parliament on January 28 is objectionable for four reasons.

To nominate IG candidates, the bill suggests the formation of a recommendation committee led by the home secretary consisting of a secretary from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and a retired IG.

Police organisations and the Public Service Commission are critical of this provision, arguing that the PSC chairperson or another authorised member should coordinate the selection. They worry that the suggested structure may invite political interference in selection.

At present the PSC does not have any role in selecting the IG either.

Ram Chandra Tiwari, home ministry spokesperson, says the bill has been registered in Parliament, and the sovereign legislature will decide on it after deliberation.

Another point of contention is related to the tenure of the IG and the additional inspector generals (AIGs). The ministry proposed setting the tenure of three years. However, the PSC and both police organisations have opposed this, saying that the IG should serve a three-year term while the AIGs should serve for four years.

The police organisation is also not happy with the government’s suggestion that the IG be appointed before the incumbent retires. It fears this could allow for manipulation and make a negative impact on the chain of command.

Security personnel also urged Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak to uphold the current regulations, claiming that having lower and higher positions in the same category with the same term, as provided in the bill, is illegal and unscientific. Minister Lekhak, however, turned down their suggestion.

Quoting the home minister at a police function on Saturday, an officer stationed at the police headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu said: “The bill will be revised before endorsement”.

Additionally, the document suggests updated service durations and retirement ages. Inspectors and those above them will retire after 20 years, police constables and head constables after 16 years, and assistant sub-inspectors after 18 years.

The age bar will be 60 years for the IG, 59 for the AIG and DIG, 58 for Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and SP, and 57 for the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector. Further, the age requirement to be an inspector has been raised from 25 to 27 years.