RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

POLICE AND PRIVATE SECURITY:

ISSUES AND PROSPECTS

SUBJECT TECHER: SATNAM SINGH

SUBJECT: PRIVATE SECURITY MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The field of Security is interpreted in terms of Internal and External Security. As
far as Internal Security is concerned, the role of Police is the most visible and
highlighted. Police is seen as an organized body of civil officers entrusted with the
tasks of preservation of good order, the prevention and detection of crime and the
enforcement of laws. The nature and connotation of Security is generally seen
from the lens of being ‘Public’ and the lesser-known interpretation of it is in
terms of being ‘Private’. It is also because the law-and-order functions are either
assigned to governmental agencies or expected from them and public law
enforcement is what strikes our imagination when talking about security.
The above-mentioned interpretations, connotations and comprehensions about
the ‘only public’ character of security is undergoing metamorphosis. A large part
of this change is attributed to the phenomenal rise of private security. In the
recent past, the private security has witnessed a rapid growth both in terms of
quantity as well as quality. A host of factors are responsible for this including:
cost, accessibility, flexibility, perception of security and the limitations of public
security. Private security has provided many security seekers with a 24x7 kind of
reliable and cost-effective option for safeguarding their life as well as property.
The heightened threat perceptions emanating from terrorism and other disruptive
issues have also pushed individuals and companies to look for tailor-made and
reliable security beyond public security. The author in a previous work had noted with
caution that internal security in India has been marred by the feelings of all pervasive
deep ‘insecurity’ amongst the citizens on account of innumerable challenges. The
challenges discussed included persistent Terrorist activities; growing spatial spread
and consolidation of Naxalism; simmering social fault-lines of caste, religion, gender,
ethnicity, region and language; crisis of governance including the failure of Police
to enforce the rule of law; rising crime rate; dilatory and ineffective criminal
justice system; and politicized and unprofessional approach of Police (Mehta, 2009).
It is pertinent to mention here that shortage of manpower is one of the key factors
hampering the public security in overcoming these challenges.
No wonder, the number of private security agencies and private security
personnel have increased manifold. The growth is also visible in terms of foray of
private security agencies into multiple sectors including Banks, Industries, Education,
Hospitals, Hotels, Shopping Malls and Airports around the World. In case of certain
agencies, a great deal of specialization has also been seen (Mehta, 2013, p. 46).
Deborah, D. Avant notes that Private Security Companies are even providing
military and security services to states, international organizations including
Non-Governmental Organizations, global corporations, and wealthy
individuals. The author further brings to us the fact that every multi-lateral
peace operation conducted by the United Nations since 1990 included the
presence of these companies (Avant, 2005, p.7).In the Indian context too this
quantitative as well as qualitative expansion of Private Security has been all
too visible. R. K. Raghavan, Former Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
says that finding public police response as inadequate; many consumers
have gone towards private security agencies for handling their personal
security problems.
The mushrooming of these companies is a testimony to this trend. In his
opinion, these agencies provide manpower that offers at least a semblance
of protection to threatened individuals (Raghavan, 2003). Harwood also
supports this rationale by stating that “in India, where the country’s police
forces are stretched thin, private security guards have stepped into this
vacuum and are becoming de facto police officers” (Harwood, 2009).
Legal Bodies
The Central Association of Private Security Industry (CAPSI) in its website
mentions that it has emerged as an ‘elite association’ nationally and
internationally of renowned security professionals managing world’s largest
‘workforce of 8 million’ guardsmen and women engaged in providing private
security cover to the Nation (CAPSI Website).
Not only the industry is expanding, but in certain cases the private security
in India is undergoing a metamorphosis and is rapidly transforming from mostly
unarmed, static security guards that patrolled apartment buildings, hotels and
other businesses into armed anti-terrorism units. There has been surge in
demand for this kind of specialized security in the wake of Mumbai terrorist
attacks of 2008 (Bennett, 2009).
This expansion led the Government of India to enact The Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and subsequently States have followed with the
Rules relating to the same. This growth of Private Security initially unregulated
and then in a regulated environment has in addition to its benefits raised certain
issues vis-à-vis Police Administration..
Police and Private Security: Nature of Relationship
The Police and Private Security, both function in order to provide security. The
orientation, though, is different on account of public law enforcement functions being
society- or community-oriented, whereas private security functions are essentially
client-oriented. In this context Clifford Shearing noted that the nature of relationship
between private and public policing was clear; while the public police acted in the
public interest, private police acted for private interests that were often, if not
always, at odds with the public interest (Shearing, 1992, p. 406). Further, there are
limitations on private security personnel in terms of the possession and exercise of
police powers – that is, the power of arrest (Fischer and Green, 2004, p.48).
These differences, however, do not wean us away from realizing that for the sake of
security at large, their roles should be complementary in nature.
Clifford D. Shearing in his monumental work says that reigning conceptions of
relations between public force and private policing have changed markedly. A
state-centred view saw order maintenance as a quintessential function of
government. In recent decades, a laissez faire view has emerged that celebrates
“private-public partnerships” and sees private policing as an industry providing both
a service and a public benefit (Shearing, 1992, p. 399).
Fischer and Green remind us that the 1975 Task Force on Private Security
had stated that “public law enforcement and private security agencies should
work closely together, because their respective roles are complementary in
the effort to control crime. Indeed, the magnitude of the nation’s crime
problem should preclude any form of competition between the two” (Fischer
and Green, 2004, pp. 48-49).
One of the most frequently cited view of the relationship between the two
agencies is that “both private security and the public Police are committed to
similar general objectives and that private security makes its contribution to
these objectives by complementing the public Police”. This view is
particularly emphasized by the private security community (Shearing and
Stenning, 1981, p. 219).
In spite of the emphasis on the advantages of working together and
complimentary roles of the Police and Private Security, there are issues of
concern between the two causing strains in their relationship. These issues
along with the challenges have been discussed later in this paper.
Relationship in the Context of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act,
2005 and Rules Framed by the State Governments in India
The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 through its provisions
have also established the framework for relationship between the two agencies.
Section 7 of the Act titled ‘Application for Grant of License’ in its 4th clause
mentions the obtaining of no objection certificate(NOC) by the Controlling
Authority from the concerned police authority on the receipt of an application for
license from a private security agency. Section 9 specifically says that while
engaging a supervisor of private security guards, every private security agency
shall in addition to ex-servicemen, give preference to a person who has
experience of serving in State Police including Armed Constabularies and
Home Guards. Similarly, in case of private security guard, Section 10
mentions the preference for person who has served as member in Police
including armed constabularies of States and Home Guards. Section 13 of
the Act deals with the ‘Cancellation and Suspension of License’ and in its
Clause (1) sub clause (l) it says that one of the grounds for the cancellation of
license is that the ‘license holder did not provide assistance to the Police or
any other authority in the discharge of its duties or acted in a manner prejudicial
to national security or public order or law and order’.
Section 18 of the Act is titled ‘Disclosure of information to unauthorized
person’. In its clause (1) prohibits the private security guard from
disclosing/divulging any information acquired by him during employment
except the disclosure required in connection with any inquiry or investigation by
the Police. In clause (2) it has been mandated upon private security guards to
render necessary assistance to the Police in the process of any investigation
pertaining to the activities of their agency. Clause (3) puts the onus on the
private security guard that during the discharge of duties, if any violation of law
is noticed by him, he shall bring it to the notice of superior who in turn shall
inform the Police (Mehta, 2013, p. 47).
Section 21 lays down the ‘Penalty for unauthorized use of certain uniforms’
and clearly prohibits the private security guard and supervisor from wearing the
uniform or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the distinctive
marks of the uniform of Armed Forces and Police. The penalty for the
guard/supervisor and proprietor of the agency is imprisonment for term
extending to one year or fine extending to five thousand rupees or both.
A look at the subsequent Rules framed by the Union as well as State Governments,
namely The Private Security Agencies Central Model Rules, 2006; The Chandigarh
Administration Private Security Agencies Rules, 2006; The Gujarat Private Security
Agencies Rules, 2007; The Punjab Private Security Agencies Rules, 2007; The Delhi
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2009; The Haryana Private Security
Agencies Rules, 2009; and The Himachal Pradesh Private Security
Agencies(Regulation) Rules, 2011 - also reveals that be it the verification of
character and antecedents of the applicant for license or such verification in
case of the guard, the role of Police straightaway comes into picture.
There is lot of interface between the Police and Private Security on account of these
aspects. Thus, we see that in Indian context, the relationship between the Police
and Private Security has a framework on account of the Private Security Agencies
(Regulation) Act and the subsequent Rules framed by the state governments. This
framework attempts to regulate the private security agencies as well as their personnel
and Controlling Authority as well as Police have been given powers in this regard.
The private security agencies have raised concerns and fears of being over regulated,
but when compared to the previous un-regulated era, one can easily comprehend that
for the sake of standards, regulation is essential.
Police and Private Security: Issues and Challenges in Relationship
As mentioned earlier, despite common goals of security and manifold benefits of cooperating, the
Police and Private Security have several issues of concern causing strains in their relationship.
Fischer and Green identified thirteen such issues, namely:
(i) Lack of mutual respect;
(ii) Lack of communication;
(iii) Lack of law enforcement knowledge of private security;
(iv) Perceived competition;
(v) Lack of standards for private security personnel;
(vi) Perceived corruption of Police;
(vii) Jurisdictional conflict;
(viii) Confusion of identity and the issues flowing from it;
(ix) Mutual image and communication problems;
(x) Provision of services in borderline or overlapping areas of responsibility and interest;
(xi) Moonlighting policies for public police;
(xii) Difference in legal powers; and
(xiii) False alarm rates (Fischer and Green, 2004, p. 49).
There is a feeling that these issues have resulted on account of misconceptions and lack of
understanding about each other
• Lack of Mutual Respect:
In India, public law enforcement authorities are seen to be occupying a high pedestal
and private security is seen to be at a lower rung of hierarchy as far as their relative
status is concerned. Public security gets all the privileges, status and limelight and
private security are seen as a ‘distant and poor cousins’, who are lowly paid, have long
working hours, less benefits and have been given the marginalized tasks of security.
On account of this, there indeed is a lack of respect given to private security agencies
by the Police. This feeling is mutual because private security agencies also feel that
Police are self-centered and arrogant and are unfairly given primacy in the domain of
security.
• Lack of Communication:
Another factor for this strained relationship is lack of communication between the
two. At many places this communication is even missing. In the absence of any formal
channel of communication, most of it takes place spontaneously, is incident based and
is generally not in good taste. The communication with one-way/unidirectional
pattern flowing from Police side towards private security causes heartburn and
widens the rift.
• Lack of Law Enforcement Knowledge of Private Security:
The far from cordial relationship between the two is also on account of the
perception that private security agencies lack the law enforcement knowledge
and mishandle cases. In the Indian context, the educational level of those
recruited to Private Security Agencies is generally low and Training programs
are also too short for making them aware of several technicalities of Law. No
wonder, in this regard, Police hold private security personnel with contempt.
• Perceived Competition:
The part of problem in relationship is also because of perceived competition
between the two on the common turf of security. Ever since private security has
witnessed expansion and entry into hitherto closed areas – public security started
feeling uncomfortable. Banks, Airports even Correctional Institutions are some of
the areas/sectors, which saw large scale infusion of private security. In Indian
context too, there is a talk about identifying non-core police functions and
handing them over to private security. The mushrooming of Private Detective
Agencies also has given strength to this opinion and has caused heart burns
• Lack of Standards for Private Security Personnel:
The manner in which initially private security agencies came up and personnel
were brought in – the standards – left much to be desired. Even after the coming
into being of the Regulation and Rules governing the Private Security
Agencies – questions have been raised about their standards. The concern areas
relate to educational, technical, physical standards plus the lack of training
standards of private security vis-à-vis public security or Police. Thus, a strong
opinion has emerged that those who cannot meet the standards of Police or who
cannot clear the tough standards of recruitment to Police, take the alternative
route by entering into Private Security.
• Perceived Corruption of Police:
The relationship between the two also suffer because Police is perceived to
be corrupt by the private security personnel. As such there is a lack of
faith in giving/sharing information with the Police. It is pertinent to mention
here that mutual respect component also takes a hit, when perceived corruption
feelings arise.
• Jurisdictional Conflict:
At times the relationship suffers because of jurisdictional conflicts/issues.
Whether Private Security can intervene in a particular matter or not?,
Where the limit of Private Security begins and ends vis-à-vis Police? - are
some of the issues which may result in conflicts. These jurisdictional issues
are all the more important in the light of emerging role of private security – it
entering newer and newer areas and assuming responsibilities, which were
never with it earlier. These conflicts highlight the need for better coordination
between the two.
• Confusion of Identity:
The regulation and rules do demand clear cut – differentiation of identities
flowing from uniforms and ranks, etc. As mentioned earlier, the Private
Security Agencies (Regulation) Act describes the penalty provisions also
for the violation of the identity issues. Nevertheless, ordinary citizens
may not be in a position to differentiate the uniforms and ranks of these
organizations vis-à-vis Police at all times.
• Difference in Legal Powers:
As mentioned earlier, one of the major differences between the two agencies, in addition
to that of the orientation, is on account of the general absence of legal powers like the
power to arrest with the private security. It has to be understood here that the powers given
to Police too are under limitations and comes with great amount of accountability
considering its public nature. Private Security with lesser instruments of accountability and
appointment of its personnel not at the instance of the State, does necessitates its
reduced or negligible legal powers at the moment.
• False Alarm Rates:
When a panic button is pressed and actually nothing materializes – this puts strain on the
time, energy and resources of public security. The other perspective is that even if the alarm
ends up being untrue, still, it needs to be pursued. The Police look at all such cases as
instances of unprofessionalism on the part of private security and the relationship between
the two suffers. Looking ahead, there is a possibility of some challenges continuing and
others emerging in the context of relationship between the two. These challenges include
permitting private security to enter into the areas hitherto meant only for Police;
understanding of the roles of each other; evolving coordination mechanisms between
the two; level of arming the Private Security along with the requisite training; balancing
the public interest vis-à-vis private interest in the domain of security.
It may sound radical from Indian context, but it is worthwhile to have a look at Gary
T. Marx’s broader study on undercover work in USA, wherein he has touched
upon five forms of interdependence between public and private police: joint
investigations; public security delegating authority to private security; private
interests hiring public police; new organizations having blurred distinctions between
public and private; and circulation of personnel between public and private security
(Marx, 1987).
There are already examples from around the world, which shows that some Private
Security agencies are managing Correctional institutions, have become
transnational in nature and are even heavily armed. In the light of this, it can be
deduced that the more areas they are allowed to enter into and grow in power, the
more challenges are likely to emerge in their relationship with Police. The level of
arming the private security agencies would be another challenge, which
would require careful deliberation on the part of policy makers. The dilution of the
right to use force, which generally is interpreted in terms of monopoly of State, by
allowing Private Security to be armed, is likely to throw several fundamental
questions including those relating to their training for the same and
accountability in a democratic framework.
Police and Private Security: Prospects
The relationship between the Police and Private Security does have its
share of concern areas. Yet, at the same time, the complementarities
between the two offer prospects of better and effective security to the
society. The relationship in future can indeed be fruitful provided the
sustained efforts are made in this direction and the following suggestions
are kept in mind:
• Understanding and Appreciating Respective Roles:
The relationship between any two agencies rests upon trust and
understanding. This logic applies perfectly in case of the relationship
between the Police and Private Security. Both the agencies are
contributing to the broader goal of security. As discussed earlier, despite
this, at the moment there are strained relations. The trust between the two
would get strengthened, when personnel in respective agencies would
start understanding the perspective of the other and appreciating the
roles performed by one another.
• Attitude Re-orientation:
There is a strong rationale for the emergence and growth of Private Security
Agencies in the Indian security scenario. Therefore, the attitude of Police towards
them needs to be re-worked. The shortage of manpower, limitations on account of
reach and availability at all places and at all times – needs to be realized by the
public security network too. The Private Security also needs to see the real picture
and appreciate the tasks undertaken by the Police. The specialization, community-
orientation, standards of recruitment and training of Police – should not become the
factors for heartburn amongst Private Security – rather they be imbibed and
appreciated and efforts be made to work upon their own professional standards.
• Role/Jurisdictional Clarity:
The study of relationship between the Police and Private Security exhibited that
their strained relationship is also on account of lack of clarity of roles and their
respective jurisdiction. It is therefore suggested that these issues be sorted out right
at the outset. The clarity on the role and jurisdiction would prevent perceived
competition and complaints and criticism about the nature and style of functioning of
one another. Complementarities of their role would also be better appreciated, once
the clarity is established.
• Better Coordination:
In the light of strains in the relationship, it is suggested that coordination
mechanisms be evolved between the two. As both the agencies are contributing
for essentially the common good, it would be appropriate to have such
mechanism in place. The coordination would also help the two agencies to come
closer and know more about each other. Several misconceptions and
misunderstandings about the role and utility of the other could thus be overcome.
In any case, on account of lesser manpower of Police, the coordinated
efforts with Private Security can yield immense dividends for the security
scenario in India.
• Meetings at Regular Periods:
In the same light, there is a need to establish forums, wherein the Police and
Private Security can meet on regular basis, discuss their issues of concern, air
their grievances, dispel misunderstandings and share inputs on a common
platform. The minimum frequency should be specified for such meetings and in
addition, depending upon the need of the hour, meetings can be held between
the two.
• Learning from the Punjab Experience:
A very pertinent example as far as synergy and coming together of the
Police and Private Security comes from Punjab. Punjab Police has set up a
Punjab Security Training Institute at Police Recruits Training Centre (PRTC)
at Jahan Khelan. This Centre - a first of its kind in the country - since its
inception in 2008 has so far trained over 5000 private security guards
including 300 female guards. The Indian government has authorised
the institute as a Vocational Training Provider (VTP) under its Skill
Development Initiative Scheme (SDIS). The institute is managed by
Punjab Police Security Corporation, constituted under the Companies Act,
with Punjab government's approval. The DGP is the ex-officio chairman of
the corporation. It also has a placement officer, whose job is to liaise with
the industry and business establishments to impart training and arrange
placements (Kaur, 2013). Such a mechanism dispels the concern about
the standards of private security personnel, thereby earning them respect
form one and all.
• Implementation of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and the
subsequent Rules of the States without any undue harassment to private security
interests:
As discussed in the text, The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and the Rules
framed subsequent to it by the States have given some leverage to the Police as far as their
relationship with Private Security is concerned. There is a fear that regulatory framework might
give more/unnecessary powers to Police and create an environment which is not positive
between the two agencies and conducive to growth. It is therefore suggested that all such
fears, real or perceived be clarified amongst the two in order to establish and sustain a cordial
relationship.
• Emphasis on Standards:
One of the major reasons for the lack of respect shown to Private Security by the Police is on
account of the lower recruitment, educational and other standards of the Private Security
personnel. For their own sake as well as for the sake of improving the relationship between the
two, it is essential that lot of emphasis is paid by the Private Security on the standards of its
personnel. Minimum educational qualifications need to be revised. Private security personnel
should be able to establish the identity of individuals, converse with them in an effective
manner and must possess the requisite skills including a reasonable legal knowledge.
Higher the standards and professionalism of the Private Security, higher would be the
respect they would earn from all quarters including Police.
• Improvement in Content, Duration and Infrastructure for Training/Capacity Building:
A major aspect of standards and professionalism flows from the issue of Training or Capacity Building.
The Rules regulating Private Security Agencies mentions the subjects of such a training as well
as duration of training, which is a minimum of hundred hours of classroom instruction and sixty hours of
field training spread over at least twenty working days in a recognised institute - Private Security
Agencies Central Model Rules (2006), Private Security Agencies Rules of Chandigarh (2006), Gujarat
(2007), Punjab (2007), Delhi (2009), Haryana (2009) and Himachal Pradesh (2011). The subjects
mentioned in the Rules for training needs to be continuously assessed and newer dimensions added as
and when required. There is a need to enhance the duration of the same also as 60 hours of field
training is insufficient on all accounts. More importantly it is about, who provides training and where. The
Security Sector Skill Council, namely Management & Entrepreneurship and Professional Skills Council
(MEPSC) has an important role to play towards this endeavor.
• Active Intervention by Central Association of Private Security Industry (CAPSI):
The Central Association of Private Security Industry is functioning as a federal body which
represents the interests of entire private security industry in India. It operates through its state chapters.
It has been interacting with Union Ministry of Home Affairs, with State Governments and deliberating
over critical issues through activities like Conferences and Newsletters. Keeping in mind its base and
vision in this regard, it is suggested that CAPSI at the central level and through its state chapters
should become more proactive and take a lead in organizing meetings between the Police and Private
Security on a regular basis, where issues can be discussed and concerns removed or mitigated.
 THANK YOU

Reference:
Dr. Akshat Mehta (2018), Relationship Between Police and Private Security: Issues and
Prospects : International Research Journal On Police Science, Volume 4, Issue 1&2,
2018.