When asked what were the most common obstacles they generally faced during criminal investigation, around 28 percent civil police personnel reported political pressure as the main hindrance, according to a survey by Common Cause and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).

The Status of Policing in India Report 2019 was released in the national capital on August 27 by former Supreme Court Justice Jasti Chelameswar, social activist Aruna Roy, former director-general of police Prakash Singh and senior advocate Vrinda Grover.

The policemen who were surveyed mostly cited issues related to internal working of police, various kinds of pressure on them, legal system and society-related obstacles as the most common ones during criminal investigation.Of this, pressure on them, especially from politicians, stood out as the main barrier.

However, an observation revealed that the number of policemen who reported pressure from politicians as a key constraint decreased with increasing number of years in service.

Meanwhile, cases involving 'influential people' very often involved political interference, with about 38 percent police personnel reporting that they faced political pressure in such cases.

Over three-fifth of those surveyed said posting or transfer to a different area was the most common consequence of failure to comply with such pressure. Meanwhile, suspension or dismissal from service and was reported as another common consequence by around 12 percent policemen, with 5 percent of them also mentioning physical assault and threat to their personal safety.

Despite the Supreme Court's verdict in 2006 in what is popularly referred to as the Prakash Singh case, political pressure continues to be one of the main limitations during investigations till this day. The apex court had then ordered that police reforms must be take place, with seven binding directives being issued to states and union territories in this regard.

The very first guideline pertaining to the constitution of a state security commission in each state and union territory aimed to "ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police." However, a decade later, the issue still persists.