Plainclothes Policing: Legal Position and Accountability Concerns in India

Plainclothes Policing Latest News

• Videos from the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest in Delhi showed police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel in civilian clothes, or in uniform without visible nameplates. 
• This has triggered a debate on the legality of unidentified policing during crowd control situations.

What Triggered the Controversy

• Protesters organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), demanding action over the NEET paper leak and the resignation of the Education Minister, marched towards Parliament. 
• Police lathi-charged the swelling crowd, leading to violent clashes and injuries on both sides. 
• Social media videos allegedly showed unidentified men in civilian clothes using police-style lathis against protesters, while uniformed personnel without nameplates ignored questions about their identity. 
• Delhi Police has not officially responded, but has reportedly directed personnel at the protest site to report in uniform going forward.

‹ ›

Is Hiding Identity Legal?

• Certain operations — particularly intelligence gathering — genuinely require concealment of identity or even impersonation. 
• However, routine policing is bound by statutory procedure and judicial guidelines, which generally require identifiability.

Statutory basis

• Maintenance of public order is governed by Chapter XI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Sections 148–160 (earlier Chapter X of the CrPC, formerly Chapter IX). 
• While the law does not explicitly mandate identification, only a magistrate or a “police officer” is empowered to order a crowd to disperse — implying that the officer issuing such a command must be identifiable. 
• Legal experts argue that an unidentifiable person cannot lawfully exercise this statutory power.

Judicial precedent

• In DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court mandated that arresting officers must carry clear, visible identification. 
• Though this ruling concerned arrests rather than crowd control, it reflects the judiciary’s broader expectation that police be identifiable while exercising coercive authority.
• In August 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioned how citizens could recognise plainclothes personnel as police while they discharged official duties, in a case involving a YSRCP MLA accused of obstructing police work.

Why Police Avoid Identification

• Security concerns: The practice reportedly originated in conflict zones like Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Chhattisgarh, where personnel avoided nameplates and rank insignia to reduce the risk of being targeted by militants.
• Personal safety in routine duty: Officers argue visible identification can expose them to prolonged litigation, online harassment, and threats to their families.
• Practice has spread: What began as a conflict-zone safeguard has gradually extended into routine law-and-order policing, a trend experts describe as contentious when applied outside genuine security threats.
• Logistical compulsion: When additional personnel are urgently summoned to a protest site, all available officers from a unit — including those in plain clothes — are required to report, often due to overwhelming crowd size rather than deliberate strategy.

Acknowledged Ambiguity

• While the law does not strictly bar deploying plainclothes personnel, senior officers concede the practice introduces ambiguity into already volatile protest situations. 
• However, they argue such deployment remains important because anti-social elements can infiltrate protests and trigger violence or arson — special branch personnel are specifically tasked with blending into crowds to gather intelligence and monitor troublemakers.

Conclusion

• The plainclothes policing debate captures a real tension between operational security concerns and democratic accountability. 
• While Indian law does not explicitly bar unidentified policing, statutory logic and judicial precedent point toward identifiability as essential to the legitimate exercise of police power — making transparency, not anonymity, the constitutional default for routine law enforcement.

Source: IE | ToI