Authored By: Sejal Ben Patel
UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE, UTKAL UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
Police accountability is central to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system. In India, however, access to justice frequently depends not on the existence of a legal wrong but on the perceived seriousness of the complaint by law-enforcement authorities. Incidents involving small monetary loss, cyber fraud of limited value, or early-stage digital harassment are often dismissed as insignificant, resulting in denial of timely legal intervention. This article critically examines how dismissive policing, moral policing, and institutional indifference operate as structural barriers to justice. Drawing from lived experiences relating to online fraud and cyber intimidation, the paper highlights the dangerous consequences of treating “minor” complaints as legally irrelevant. The study argues that police inaction in such cases violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to a form of institutional violence. Through an analysis of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and ground realities, the article exposes the widening gap between law in theory and law in practice. It further contends that early legal intervention is essential to prevent the normalization and escalation of criminal behavior. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for victim-centric policing, stronger accountability mechanisms, and a shift from reactive to preventive justice in India.
INTRODUCTION
- Background
In every constitutional democracy, the police function as the first institutional gateway to justice. Before a court hears a grievance, before a judge applies the law, and before rights are adjudicated, a citizen must first cross the threshold of the police station. The police therefore operate not merely as law-enforcement agents but as gatekeepers of the justice delivery system.
In theory, Indian criminal law does not differentiate between a “small” and a “big” injustice. The Criminal Procedure Code, the Information Technology Act, and constitutional jurisprudence emphasize legality, not monetary magnitude. Yet, in practice, an informal hierarchy of complaints exists. Crimes involving large sums of money, influential parties, or public attention often receive immediate response, while grievances involving modest financial loss or early stage cyber threats are frequently trivialized.
This disparity reveals a deeper institutional problem — justice in practice becomes discretionary rather than rights-based.
- Context: The Reality Faced by Ordinary Citizens
The rise of digital transactions, online shopping, and social media has transformed daily life in India. Along with convenience, it has also expanded opportunities for cyber fraud, impersonation, and harassment. Importantly, many such offences begin with small financial losses or preliminary threats. These early acts are often warning signs rather than isolated incidents.
However, victims approaching law-enforcement authorities frequently encounter responses such as:
“The amount is too small.”
“Nothing serious has happened yet.”
“It will be a long process; better avoid it.”
Such responses do not merely delay justice — they deny it at the threshold.
A lived experience involving online shopping fraud illustrates this systemic failure. Despite clear evidence of deception and even an audio admission by the seller, institutional response remained indifferent. The underlying message conveyed was not that the law lacked remedy, but that the grievance lacked importance.
This perception fundamentally contradicts the rule of law.
Research Objectives
This article seeks to examine the following questions:
Whether police refusal to act in small-value cases has constitutional implications Whether dismissive policing violates the right to equality and dignity
Whether moral policing by law-enforcement authorities amounts to rights infringement Whether sustained inaction constitutes institutional violence
How the gap between legal guarantees and ground reality undermines access to justice
Through doctrinal analysis and experiential narrative, the article aims to highlight how everyday injustices, when ignored, weaken the foundations of democratic accountability.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Constitutional Foundations
The Constitution of India does not treat access to justice as a privilege. It is embedded within the broader framework of fundamental rights.
- Article 14 – Equality Before Law1
Article 14 guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of laws. Police refusal to entertain complaints based on monetary value or subjective seriousness violates this guarantee.
When similar offences are treated differently solely due to financial magnitude, equality before law becomes illusory.
- Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty2
The Supreme Court has consistently expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, the right to legal remedies, and the right to fair procedure. Access to justice has been recognized as an inseparable component of this right.
In Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat3, the Court held that denial of fair investigation directly infringes Article 21.
When citizens are turned away at the police station itself, the violation begins not in court but at the very entry point of justice.
Statutory Duties of the Police
Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code4
Section 154 mandates registration of an FIR when information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The provision does not permit assessment of gravity, monetary value, or likelihood of success before registration.
The police function at this stage is ministerial, not adjudicatory.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh5
In the landmark judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court categorically held that registration of FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible except in limited categories.
The Court emphasized that refusal to register FIR amounts to dereliction of duty and attracts disciplinary action.
Despite this clarity, ground reality reflects continued resistance to registration — particularly in cases deemed “minor.”
Cyber Law Framework
The Information Technology Act, 20006 criminalizes various cyber offences including identity theft, cheating by personation, and unauthorized use of electronic data. Cyber fraud does not require large financial loss to constitute an offence.
The harm lies not merely in money but in deception, misuse of trust, and digital vulnerability.
Yet, victims reporting cyber offences frequently face procedural discouragement, reflecting lack of training and sensitivity among enforcement authorities.
ANALYSIS
Small Amount Does Not Mean Small Injustice
One of the most persistent myths in policing culture is that small monetary loss equals minor wrongdoing. This belief is legally flawed and socially dangerous.
In an online shopping fraud incident, a consumer paid ₹1600 but received a product worth barely ₹50. The seller, when confronted, displayed absolute confidence and indifference, openly challenging the victim to “do whatever you can.”
This confidence did not emerge in isolation. It was rooted in the knowledge that consequences were unlikely.
The moment wrongdoing becomes fearless, law loses its deterrent value.
The response from authorities further reinforced this imbalance. Instead of institutional support, the victim encountered casual remarks, skepticism, and symbolic procedures without meaningful follow-up.
This experience reveals a troubling reality: enforcement does not always depend on legality but on perceived worthiness.
The False Distinction Between Small and Serious Crimes
Criminal law recognizes no such classification. Theft, cheating, and fraud are offences regardless of quantum.
Small-scale fraud often functions on repetition. A wrongdoer may defraud hundreds of individuals of small amounts, accumulating large illegal gains while remaining under the radar.
When police ignore early complaints, they unintentionally facilitate this model of crime. Preventive justice fails not because law is absent, but because it is withheld. The question therefore arises:
If a complaint involving ₹1 crore receives urgent attention, but ₹1600 does not, is justice truly blind — or merely selective?
This selective enforcement directly contradicts constitutional morality.
Psychological Impact on Victims
Beyond financial loss, dismissive policing causes psychological harm. The victim begins to internalize injustice as inevitable. Faith in institutions weakens, and silence becomes normalized.
Such normalization is dangerous in a democracy. When citizens stop reporting wrongs, crime statistics may appear low, but injustice silently increases.
The legal system loses not only cases but credibility.
Moral Policing by Law Enforcement: A Silent Violation of Rights
One of the most disturbing forms of police misconduct is not physical brutality, but moral policing — the substitution of legal duty with personal judgment.
In a case involving cyber blackmail, a young woman approached the cyber police station after being threatened by an unknown Instagram account that claimed it would circulate her images using artificial intelligence technology. The act of approaching the police itself required immense courage. Cyber blackmail is deeply stigmatized, particularly for women, due to fear of family reaction, social scrutiny, and character judgment.
Instead of reassurance or legal guidance, the response she received was cautionary and discouraging.
The police officer advised her to stay away from social media, warned her that investigation would involve repeated questioning, and suggested that the matter could reach her parents or society. The implicit message was clear — seeking justice may cost you your dignity.
This response reflects a dangerous inversion of responsibility. The wrongdoer disappears from focus, while the burden shifts entirely to the victim.
Victim-Blaming as Institutional Practice
Moral policing transforms the police station from a site of protection into a space of intimidation. When victims are advised to withdraw complaints in the name of “social safety,” the state abdicates its protective role.
Such conduct violates:
Article 21, which includes the right to dignity and psychological security Article 14, as similar offences are treated differently based on gender and social perception Principles of victimology, which require support, not suspicion
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that dignity is intrinsic to life under Article 21. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India7, the Court emphasized that personal autonomy and decisional freedom form the core of constitutional liberty.
Advising a woman to restrict her digital presence instead of addressing the criminal threat directly contradicts this constitutional vision.
Preventive Justice and the Cost of Early Inaction
The most troubling aspect of such cases lies in what could have happened.
At the time of complaint, no harm may have materialized. Images may not yet have been circulated. Money may not yet have been extorted. But criminal law does not exist merely to punish completed harm — it exists to prevent foreseeable harm.
If the offender had later acted, and the victim had suffered irreversible consequences, the legal system would respond only after tragedy.
This raises a fundamental question:
What is the value of justice that awakens only after damage is done?
Preventive policing is a constitutional necessity, not a discretionary favour. Early reporting must be encouraged, not penalized.
When police discourage complaints, they convert potential prevention into post-facto sympathy — a transformation that often comes too late.
Police Inaction as a Form of Institutional Violence
Institutional violence is often misunderstood as overt abuse. In reality, it frequently manifests through silence, delay, and neglect.
When an individual repeatedly approaches authorities and receives indifference, laughter, or procedural avoidance, the harm inflicted is real, though invisible.
This form of violence includes:
Denial of legal remedy
Emotional invalidation of suffering
Reinforcement of offender confidence
Normalization of injustice
Unlike physical violence, institutional violence leaves no visible marks — yet it corrodes trust more deeply.
The police, by virtue of their authority, shape citizens’ perception of law. When that authority communicates apathy, the message spreads far beyond the individual case.
The Culture of “Nothing Can Be Done”
One recurring phrase heard by victims is: “Practically nothing can be done.” This statement is not merely incorrect — it is constitutionally dangerous.
Law enforcement officers are not empowered to decide whether justice is worth pursuing. Their duty is to initiate legal process, not predict its outcome.
The moment police assume the role of judges of feasibility, they exceed their mandate and undermine separation of powers.
The Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union8 of India emphasized that police accountability and professionalism are essential for democracy. Yet everyday interactions reveal a culture of convenience rather than compliance.
Access to Justice: Law in Books vs Law on Ground
India possesses one of the most comprehensive constitutional frameworks in the world. Statutes, judicial precedents, and victim protection mechanisms exist in abundance.
However, access to justice is not measured by the number of laws enacted, but by the ease with which citizens can invoke them.
On paper:
FIR registration is mandatory
Cybercrime is cognizable
Victims have procedural rights
On ground:
Complaints are filtered informally
Victims are discouraged emotionally
Small cases are sidelined
This disconnect produces a dual legal system — one visible in judgments, and another lived by citizens.
Justice thus becomes aspirational rather than operational.
FINDINGS/ OBSERVATIONS
Based on the legal analysis and experiential narrative, the following key findings emerge:.
Dismissive policing violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Moral policing constitutes indirect discrimination, particularly against women.
Early-stage inaction undermines the preventive function of criminal law.
Institutional discouragement causes victims to withdraw complaints voluntarily.
Repeated neglect strengthens offender confidence and normalizes illegality.
The gap between constitutional promise and enforcement reality remains severe.
These findings demonstrate that access to justice in India is often determined not by law, but by institutional attitude.
CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
The strength of a justice system lies not in its response to extraordinary crimes, but in its treatment of ordinary grievances.
When citizens approach the police with small losses, early threats, or initial harm, they are not seeking sympathy — they are exercising constitutional rights. The refusal to recognize these rights at the threshold transforms law enforcement from protector to barrier.
Small injustice ignored today does not disappear; it multiplies.
Each instance of inaction sends a message to society — that wrongdoing is tolerable until it becomes too large to ignore. Such a message not only emboldens offenders but discourages honest citizens.
Justice that responds only after devastation is not justice — it is reaction.
A constitutional democracy cannot afford gatekeepers who decide which suffering deserves attention.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To bridge the gap between law and lived reality, the following reforms are essential: Strict enforcement of mandatory FIR registration, irrespective of monetary value Disciplinary accountability for officers refusing or discouraging complaints Victim-centric training, especially in cyber and gender-sensitive offences
Independent district-level police grievance authorities
Standard operating procedures for cybercrime complaints
Public awareness initiatives educating citizens about early reporting rights Shift from reactive to preventive policing philosophy
Justice must not wait for tragedy. It must intervene before it occurs.
REFERENCES/ BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDIAN CONSTITUTION : Article- 14, 15, 19, 21.
Lalita Kumari v. Gov’t of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (India).
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India). Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (India).
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314 (India).
Information Technology Act, 2000, India.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, India.
Law Commission of India, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure (1996). Bureau of Police Research and Development, Status of Policing in India Reports.
United Nations, Declaration of Basic Principle of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985).
