Not directly — no citizen gives orders to a police officer — but yes, through the same machinery that controls the rest of the government. Fig. 6.6 is drawn to show exactly this: the whole circle of legislature, executive, police and judiciary sits inside a ring labelled PEOPLE at the top and PEOPLE at the bottom.
The four routes shown or named in the chapter.
- Through elections. The outer ring says people “elect leaders to represent them”. Those elected representatives form the state government, and the police are part of that government — so the ministers answerable to the legislature are answerable for the police.
- Through the law itself. The legislature makes the laws the police must enforce, and the police can act only within them.
- Through the courts. The side panel of Fig. 6.6 reads: “The Constitution, laws and courts protect people’s rights and ensure justice.” If a citizen’s rights are violated, the chapter’s own rule applies — “If fundamental rights are violated, we can go to court to address the violations” (page 160).
- Through the rights themselves. “They must respect and protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.” The police may use force, but the Constitution sets the boundary, and page 150 explains why: without such limits, “elected members and government officers might use their power unchecked, which would threaten citizens’ rights.”
The everyday tools from later in the chapter also apply — a complaint to a grievance redressal office, an RTI request about how a department works, or raising an issue through the media or a civil society organisation (pages 157–160).
Why control is indirect rather than direct: a police force that took orders from whoever complained loudest would be useless — and dangerous. So the design puts the control one step away: the people control the government, the government directs the police, and the courts check both. Slower, but it means the force is answerable to law rather than to pressure.