India, Nov. 11 -- A protest by Delhi Police personnel against summary transfers - the orders came after a clash with lawyers over a minor issue escalated - underscores the challenges police reforms face in India. A Supreme Court judgment from 2006 issued seven directives on police reforms, and Delhi Police has complied with one relevant in the present instance: The formation of a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to handle transfers and postings. The transfers in the present instance was ordered by PEB; but, the resistance from the aggrieved officers and their supporters shows that procedural safeguards intended to insulate police decision-making are often followed in letter but not in spirit. The suspension of the assistant commissioner of police leading the protests also highlights the absenceof effective formal grievance redressal mechanisms for police personnel.In October, the Supreme Courtsought a status report on theimplementation of its 2006 reforms (Prakash Singh vs Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1). This time, the trigger was the Centre's appeal against the appointment of Tadasha Mishra as director general of Jharkhand Police. Mishra has been appointed less than six months before her superannuation - a clear violation of the Supreme Court's directive. Jharkhand's case is neither unique; nor is the vexedsubject of police reforms. A scrutiny of 275 DGP tenures across nine states over 1986-2026 shows that just about 1/4th or 25% DGP tenures completed 23 months. The 2006 reforms dictated a minimum 2 year tenure for DGPs. In the two decades since 2006, barring Rajasthan and Maharashtra, the seven remaining states showed more compliant DGP tenures. In Maharashtra, the average DGP tenure fell from about 17 months between 1986 and 2006 to just 10 months in the two decades that followed. In these nine states, 154 DGP tenures were served by 142 officers between 1986 to 2005, of which 28 tenures were for two or more years. In the next 20 years (2006-2026), there were 121 tenures served by 112 officers, and only 42 completed the minimum tenure mandate. DGP tenures have increased, but only marginally; before 2006, not only were minimum tenures not mandated but also the selection for the top police post was at the state's exclusive discretion and premature removal was notlimited to specified grounds as laid down bythe Court. Uttar Pradesh, which has thelargest police force in the country, appointed 45 DGPs (48 tenures) in the last four decades, and consequently had the most unstable tenures among the nine states studied. No DGPcompleted two years in office between 1986 and 2006. And between 2006 and 2026, only three have served for two years. West Bengal has offered more stable tenures. The state saw 27 DGP tenures over the lastfour decades, of which only 10 reached at least two years. In Uttar Pradesh, ruling parties changed frequently between 1986 and 2006, while the state has the shortest average DGP tenure (about 10 months). This period also saw its fair degree of trouble, with President's Rule imposed in 1992, 1995, 1996, and 2002. Juxtapose this with the state with the highest average tenure (17 months) - West Bengal - where the ruling dispensations then held strong for decades. There is also a stark absenceof women holding the top policepost. In the nine states examined, only two women were appointed asDGPs of a state in the last 40 years. In other states, the situation is not vastly different: The first woman DGP in India was appointed in 2004, and since then, only a handful have made it to the top post. Policing is in the State List; so, despite the Supreme Court's directives and periodic monitoring, ruling dispensations are hesitant about, if not fully opposed to, implementing the reforms. Several states have passed legislationor adopted practices to dilute the spirit of Supreme Court's 2006 judgment, be it onsending a list of eligibles to the Union PublicService Commission or the practice of appointing acting or officiating DGPs that has been repeatedly forbade by the courts. When the dispensations at the state and central level are political opponents, friction over procedures turns into discord. However, when it is the same dispensation in power in a state and the centre, compliance is conspicuous in its breach. Both situations need urgent correction....