The Indian Police Department is one of the oldest and strongest law enforcement institutions in the country, entrusted with the important responsibility of maintaining stability in the society. In history, the police have been considered protectors of law and order and security. They have to maintain law and order, prevent crime, investigate crimes and ensure justice. This department plays an important role in the functioning of the society, serving as the main link between the state and the citizens and symbolizing authority, security and accountability. Ideally, the police should act in a way that brings public confidence, provides fair security, promptly processes complaints and treats all citizens equally before the law.
However, the last few decades have seen a worrying and dangerous trend in the Indian police force, which has badly damaged this fundamental role: widespread corruption, especially the demand for bribes to file cases and initiate basic legal processes. This problem is not limited to just a few places, but has been reported in many states and at various levels of police, both in urban and rural areas. Corruption has increased so much that it affects almost every interaction between ordinary citizens and the police. From filing a First Information Report (FIR) to general verification and application for permission, paying money has become a prerequisite to getting justice.
The claim that many police officers do not file cases without taking bribes, which is sometimes refuted by government statements, cannot be ignored given the persistent complaints of citizens across the country. Already vulnerable ordinary people due to economic status, social status or marginalization are often trapped in systems that run on the power of money rather than legal principles. The demand for money not only delays the initiation of an investigation, but also damages the impartiality of law enforcement. Citizens are put in a position to bargain with people who must be impartial defenders of the law, making justice a commodity rather than a right.
At this stage of police action, corruption impacts the entire justice system. When cases are not registered properly, investigations are delayed or manipulated, accountability is lost. People who can pay bribes get special facilities, while economically weaker people are ignored, threatened or implicated in other cases for coercive acceptance. This discrimination in justice exacerbates social inequality and creates a climate of fear and mistrust. Over time, this reduces citizens’ trust not only in the police but also in the legal and government institutions that protect the law. Communities tend to regard law as a means of repression rather than of protection, and as a result public confidence in democratic governance is undermined.
The prevalence of corruption in filing cases also shows deep structural and systemic shortcomings in the police force. The climate of low wages, poor working conditions and lack of accountability is one where bribery becomes commonplace. Officials, under pressure from their superiors and political officials, often consider corruption an important way to remain in the institution. Furthermore, political interference, favoritism, and manipulation exacerbate the problem, often penalizing honesty and professional attitudes while rewarding adherence to corrupt systems. This mixture of economic compulsion, institutional tolerance and political control deepens corruption so much that even normal processes like filing cases do not escape its effects.
The social consequences of this widespread corruption are serious and far-reaching. Citizens, knowing that money may be needed to initiate legal action, often avoid going to the police. Victims of crime, especially those from marginalized communities, are often silent, as they fear persecution, extortion or revenge. Sensitive cases such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, discrimination on the basis of caste or property disputes are particularly affected, leaving vulnerable people without justice. When access to justice is dependent on money rather than legal authority, the police system becomes a watchdog of privilege and not a guarantor of rights. This not only reduces the capacity of law enforcement but also increases social inequality, anger and frustration.
Furthermore, normalizing bribery in case registration undermines the moral and values basis of policing. Newly recruited soldiers, who join the police with the ideals of public service, quickly fall into an environment of corruption and are forced to adopt non-moral methods. Officers trying to act honestly are often harassed, isolated or transferred. As a result, the culture of the police department becomes such that corruption becomes necessary to advance in career, which further increases the cycle of exploitation and weakens the integrity of the institution.
The Indian Police Department, which is entrusted with the important task of protecting the society, is facing a credibility crisis due to widespread corruption in case registration and expectation of bribes. This systemic problem affects citizens of all sectors and social strata, reducing public trust, delaying justice and increasing inequality. Reports of authorities not registering cases without money, although sometimes disputed, are a fact that cannot be ignored.
In order to restore the police as an institution that serves the public and not exploits it, comprehensive reforms are urgently needed – structural changes, transparent procedures, improved salaries, methods of accountability and avoidance of political interference. Until such reforms are implemented, the basic work of the police to protect and obey the law suffers, leaving citizens vulnerable and the rule of law at risk. The Indian Police as an institution must face this bitter truth if it wants to regain public trust and fulfill its duty as a protector of justice and social order.
To fully understand the current situation of corruption in the Indian police system, it is necessary to study its historical development and the factors that have shaped its present form. The roots of police corruption in India can be seen in the colonial era, when the foundation of the modern police system was laid. The British administration, which ruled India for nearly two centuries, created a policing framework that was meant to maintain control over a large and diverse area, rather than serving the public impartially. The main purpose of colonial policing was not the protection of ordinary citizens or the fair enforcement of the law, but the protection of administrative, economic and political British interests. This main objective influenced the laws and methods of policing, creating a culture that prioritized authority, obedience, and maintaining order for the benefit of rulers rather than justice for the people.
During the colonial period, police officers were given powers with wide discretion, often with no clear method for accountability. This system emphasized suppressing opposition, controlling the local population, and extortion of revenue. Non-formal networks of influence, reliance on local brokers and arbitrary decision-making were commonplace. Such practices mistakenly created a climate for bribery, favouritism and corruption. Officials could abuse their authority to extort money from citizens or collude with influential groups, often with the tacit consent of their superiors. The bureaucratic and centralized nature of colonial policing, as well as the lack of independent oversight, ensured that these practices were not only tolerated, but fed into the functioning of the system. Therefore, the British police established a tradition where power was concentrated in the hands of a few and accountability to the public was negligible.
When India gained independence in 1947, ordinary people hoped that the police would turn into an institution dedicated to serving citizens, obeying the law and defending democratic values. The country had just adopted a constitution that promised equality, justice and the defence of individual rights. Although considerable progress was made in establishing democratic institutions, the inherited structure and culture of the police remained largely in place. Bureaucratic organization, centralized authority and discretion given to officials remained almost the same. Many of the practices justified during colonial rule continued after independence, creating a climate for corruption to flourish.
Many structural aspects of the post-independence police system promoted corrupt practices. The organization remained highly bureaucratic, requiring obedience to senior officials rather than serving the public. This bureaucracy often discouraged independent decision-making and ethical behavior, especially for junior officers who were expected to obey orders, even if they were non-ethical or unlawful. The lack of transparency in procedures, including case registration, investigation and reporting, further fuelled bribery and favouritism. Citizens were less aware of police action, allowing officers to change the outcome for private gain.
The lack of innumerable accountability mechanisms compounded the problem. The institutions monitoring the functioning of the police did not have sufficient resources, were under political pressure or simply did not function. The internal discipline system was weak, and external investigations, including the Independent Complaints Authority, were often not implemented or ignored. This lack of accountability meant that officials knew they could commit corruption without fear, as they knew there would be no serious consequences.
Economic factors also played an important role in promoting corruption. Police officers, especially those in lower ranks, were often poorly paid and had difficult work-conditions. Low salaries, long work-hours and lack of resources made officials more prone to taking bribes to supplement their income. Over time, this economic stimulus became associated with a widespread culture of corruption, leading to a system in which illegal income was considered normal and expected.
Cultural and social factors also reinforced corrupt practices in the police. The status attached to power, tacit acceptance of bribes as an existential instrument, and expectation of loyalty to political or bureaucratic officials created a climate in which moral behavior was often discouraged. New recruits with idealistic thinking quickly adapted to a system that rewarded cooperation and punished freedom. Refusal to participate in corrupt practices often led to their marginalization, transfer or harassment, perpetuating a culture of corruption.
The current corruption in the Indian Police cannot be fully understood without understanding its historical roots. The colonial legacy created a police system that prioritized power and control over justice and accountability, opening the way for bribery, favoritism, and arbitrariness. After independence, democratic institutions emerged and legal protections were established, but structural, economic and cultural factors allowed these methods to continue. Bureaucratic organization, lack of transparency, weak accountability, low wages and social pressure created conditions in which corruption flourished and became institutionalized. Understanding this historical development is essential to creating the design of effective reforms today. Only by addressing the systems and cultural underpinnings of corruption— by accepting the legacy of the past while implementing structural, economic and moral reforms—India can hope to transform its police system into an institution that truly serves the public interest and law enforcement Restore confidence.
At the root of the corruption prevalent in the Indian police system are structural and systemic problems, which have given non-ethical practices an opportunity to take root. It is important to understand these factors to understand why corruption has become synonymous with policing in India and why it is so difficult to carry out meaningful reforms. This problem is not just one of individual morality or some isolated incidence of corruption; rather it reflects widespread structural deficiencies, procedural inefficiencies and institutional deficiencies, which together create an environment in which corruption flourishes.
A major structural problem is the continuing underfunding and increasing burden on the police force. Police officers in India have been entrusted with many responsibilities such as local law and order, prevention and investigation of general and organized crimes, crowd control during public events, disaster management, traffic regulation and maintaining law and order in politically sensitive areas. Despite the magnitude and complexity of these responsibilities, the salaries and allowances paid to policemen are often considered inadequate, especially considering the cost of living, risks and mental and physical demands of the job. This economic pressure leads officials to earn additional income through corruption methods, including filing complaints, expediting investigations, or soliciting bribes for special treatment in legal and administrative matters. In many cases, this economic argument is not merely opportunistic, but it is the response to structural shortcomings that make this profession economically unsustainable, especially for lower rank officials who work long hours, receive limited benefits and have inadequate facilities.
The second systemic problem is related to procedural complexities and inefficiencies in the Indian legal and administrative structure. Citizens seeking legal remedies have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy, heavy paperwork and complex regulatory requirements, which are often vague and difficult to understand. FIRs, case registration, verification procedures and general administrative procedures are not standard in such a way that they are easily accessible or transparent. In such a complex environment, officials have considerable discretion, which can be misused by corrupt people for personal gain. Delay in action, refusal to file complaints, manipulation of case details and unnecessary procedural hurdles are often used to put pressure on citizens to pay bribes. This situation disproportionately affects vulnerable sections such as the poor, women, minorities and marginalized communities, who do not have the resources, knowledge or social ties needed to deal with the system without corruption. This procedural ambiguity turns the exercise of legal rights into a transaction, where money and influence, rather than merit and justice, decide the outcome.
A third important factor fuelling corruption is the lack of effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms in police systems. Internal vigilance units, complaints boards and forums for public complaint exist on paper, but in practice these often do not work effectively. Bureaucratic sluggishness, lack of political will, fears of revenge and collusion between authorities often make monitoring useless. Investigations into allegations of misconduct are often delayed, superficial or influenced by political and institutional pressures. In such an environment, many policemen work with complete impunity, convinced that there will be no punishment for their corrupt methods. The notion of exemption from repercussions, and often truth, fosters non-ethical behaviour, creating an environment where corruption is perceived as normal and expected. Honest officials trying to resist this culture may face isolation, harassment, unfair transfers or career stagnation, further strengthening a system where collusion is encouraged and honesty is punished.
Moreover, the mutual connection of these structural and systemic issues further increases the human cost of corruption. Citizens lose trust in law enforcement, considering the police to be opportunists rather than protectors who take advantage of their weakness. The reduction of this trust reduces cooperation between the public and law enforcement, making it difficult to prevent crime, investigate or maintain social order. Communities, frustrated by police access and perceived favoritism, may turn to alternative methods of justice, including monitoring groups, private security or non-formal power networks, further weakening state power. Moreover, normalizing bribes and process manipulation creates a vicious circle in which corruption and graft give rise, creating a systemic sluggishness that is difficult to eradicate.
Widespread corruption in the Indian police is the result of a number of structural and systemic issues that together create an environment conducive to non-ethical activities. Due to persistently low funds and overwork, officials are motivated to earn additional income through bribes. Complex and unclear processes lead to abuse of discretion, especially for ordinary citizens and vulnerable sections. The lack of effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms ensures that corrupt methods often carry no punishment, thereby reinforcing the culture of fearlessness. Combating corruption, therefore, requires more than just isolated disciplinary measures or moral preaching; it requires a holistic approach that includes improving workplace conditions and pay, simplifying and standardizing procedures, strengthening independent monitoring and promoting a culture of transparency and accountability. Only by addressing these basic structural and systemic deficiencies can the Indian Police be redirected towards true service, justice and public trust.
The consequences of rampant police corruption in India go far beyond the immediate economic toll it can inflict on citizens. Basically, this problem undermines the basic principles of justice, and turns an institution meant to protect the public into a mechanism that often hinders legal rights. When police officers ask for money in return for filing a complaint or initiating an investigation, ordinary citizens – especially people from economically weak or socially marginalized communities – are deprived of getting justice. The right to seek legal protection, to report crime and to hold perpetrators accountable, which is the fundamental principle of a functioning democracy, becomes dependent on the ability to bribe or use influence. This truth has a deep impact on the lives of countless people who, despite being victims of theft, harassment, domestic violence or serious crimes, do not even get basic help from the police without paying money.
For the common man, this environment gives a feeling of despair and helplessness. People do not consider the police to be the guardians of law and order, but the obstructors of justice, for whom their own benefit matters more than protecting the law. Many experiences of citizens across India show the seriousness of this problem. People said that they kept pleading for several days to lodge their complaints in several police stations, but until bribes were paid, their complaints were not registered. In sensitive crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence or discrimination on the basis of race, victims often feel fear and despair. The possibility of paying bribes or being confronted by indifferent officials prevents many from trying to seek justice, making them vulnerable to constant exploitation and harassment.
This organized corruption reduces public confidence in the police and also reduces confidence in the legal and government structure. When citizens consider that the main purpose of law enforcement is not public service but private profit, the legitimacy of the entire justice system is called into question. Over time, this perception creates frustration and discontent among the public, reduces citizen participation and weakens the social agreement between citizens and the state. People lose faith in the principle that the law protects everyone equally, regardless of their social or economic level or influence, leading to the common belief that justice can only come from money or relationships.
The social consequences of corruption in the police are serious and multifaceted. At the individual level, this reduces law-abiding behavior as citizens see that those who can pay bribes receive special treatment. This creates the impression that rules and regulations can be negotiated, which reduces adherence to legal norms. On a broader level, corruption tends to encourage criminals, because they know that the police can ignore their activities in exchange for money or other benefits. Organized crime, illegal trade and influential criminals often operate without fear, convinced that law enforcement officials will condone or promote their illegal actions. The climate of impunity that this creates fuels further corruption and criminal activity, creating a cycle in which wrongful behaviour becomes normal and expected.
The inequality created by corruption in the police is particularly harmful for marginalized communities. The economically well-off or those with social influence may abuse the system to seek justice, while the poor and vulnerable remain trapped in a cycle of injustice. This imbalance not only deprives vulnerable groups of basic legal rights, but also promotes social order and economic inequality. When justice goes primarily to the rich, it is democracy that is weakened, because the principles of equality, fairness and accountability are undermined before wealth and influence. Over time, this leads to widespread discontent, social tension, and potential unrest, as communities that do not consistently receive justice may adopt alternative methods to protect themselves or fight for their rights – which are often illegal.
Moreover, the loss of confidence in law enforcement has serious implications for social stability and governance. Civilians are less willing to cooperate with the police, report crime, or give important information needed for effective law enforcement. Investigations are disrupted, crime becomes difficult to stop and the credibility of the state is undermined. Communities may turn to gangs of hooligans, private security agencies or local influencers for protection, further weakening the formal system of law enforcement and undermining the rule of law.
Corruption in the police in India has both immediate and far-reaching consequences. In addition to the economic burden on citizens, it fundamentally affects the accessibility and fairness of the justice system. Ordinary people, especially those from marginalized and disadvantaged communities, face major obstacles in getting legal protection, while criminals and influential people misuse the system for their own benefit. Public confidence is reduced, law-abiding behaviour is reduced and social inequality increases, undermining democratic values and increasing discontent. To restore people’s trust in law enforcement officials and legal systems, it is vital to eliminate these systemic corruption practices through comprehensive reforms. These reforms will ensure accountability, transparency and equal access to justice for all citizens. Only then will the police be able to fulfill its real objective of guarding law, order and public trust.
The biggest and most serious reason for corruption in police departments in India is political interference. While corruption is caused only by economic need or personal greed, political corruption is systemic, affecting the structure, culture and functioning of the law enforcement system at every level. The relationship between politics and policing has a long history, but even today it undermines the impartiality, effectiveness and credibility of the police. This creates an environment in which bribes and wrongdoings are not only ignored but often encouraged. It is important to understand this connection to understand why corruption is so rampant in the Indian Police and why reform efforts fail again and again.
In India, police officers work in a very political environment. Decisions like filing cases, priority of investigation, arrests and transfers are often influenced by the demands of political leaders and not by legal rules. From the lowest ranked constables to senior officers of metro cities, everyone knows that their careers, postings and even their security are linked to their ability to serve political leaders. Officers who work against the interests of powerful leaders may face punishment, such as arbitrary transfers, non-promotion, suspension or false disciplinary action in distant or difficult places. In this environment, pressure to act according to political expectations becomes part of daily policing and going against it can cost a person dearly.
Political interference creates an environment in which bribery and corruption are considered important ways to save lives. Officials often ask for or take money to avoid political pressure or to avoid revenge. For example, if a complaint names politically powerful people, officials may ask for bribes to delay filing a case, disrupt the investigation, or protect influential accused. In this way, bribes become a way in which officials protect themselves while at the same time protecting the interests of political leaders. Over time, this system further promotes corruption, as both officials and leaders become dependent on it to fulfill their objectives or maintain control.
Political patronage acts as a bulwark for corrupt officials, further exacerbating non-ethical practices. Officials with close ties to influential politicians often evade disciplinary action, no matter how serious or frequent their corrupt activities are. Complaints from citizens or other allies against such officials are often dismissed, or deliberately evaded, to protect political interests. In contrast, people who try to act honestly or resist non-ethical instructions find themselves isolated, repeatedly moved, or threatened and harassed. This discriminatory implementation of accountability creates a dual system in which honesty is punished and complicity rewarded, so that corruption is deeply ingrained in the institutional structure of the police.
The consequences of this political interference extend far beyond individual cases of bribery. By subordinating law enforcement to political advantage, the police lose their independence and credibility, to the detriment of the basic principles of justice and equality. Civilians come to view the police as an instrument of political power rather than a law-enforcing impartial official, who defends the interests of the influential and marginalizes the vulnerable. This perception undermines public confidence, reduces cooperation with law enforcement and pushes communities towards alternative, non-formal or illegal methods of justice. In extreme cases, it promotes hooliganism or the formation of local power structures, thereby weakening State power and destabilizing the social system.
Moreover, the normalization of political interference fosters a culture in which bribery becomes a standard work process. Junior officers who come into service with idealistic expectations quickly learn that their careers depend on corrupt superiors and following political instructions. Refusal to engage in bribery or political manipulation often results in their isolation, transfer as punishment, or threat to their career advancement. As a result, even officials with strong moral values succumb to pressure and this cycle of corruption continues to spread across generations of employees. Over time, bribery comes to be considered a necessary work process rather than a moral mistake, making corruption a systemic aspect of policing, not an exception.
Political interference further increases socio-economic inequality in access to justice. Rich people and people with political connections can use the system to their advantage to get the results they want or suppress complaints, while marginalized citizens remain helpless due to lack of resources or influence. This creates a justice system in which the powerful work unhindered, and the poor and weak remain trapped in the cycle of exploitation. The inequality it causes undermines democratic values, as it erodes the principle that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and leads to widespread dissatisfaction with both law enforcement and the political system.
Political interference in the Indian Police is the main and deep-rooted cause of corruption. Politicians and influential people constantly put pressure on officials, forcing them to give priority to political interests rather than legal principles. This situation promotes bribery as a means of personal security and a way to accomplish political goals. Political patronage protects corrupt officials, while punishing those who try to act honestly, thereby inculcating non-moral behavior in the structure and culture of the police force. This has serious consequences: loss of public trust, unequal access to justice, increased social inequality and weakness as a law enforcement institution. Tackling this problem requires not only procedural and administrative reforms, but also the reduction of political interference and the establishment of a strong, independent accountability mechanism that can ensure that the police operate fairly and in the public interest. Without stopping political interference, bribery will continue to increase and the promise of an honest, professional police force will remain unfulfilled.
The problem of bribery in the Indian police system cannot be interpreted as mere structural shortcomings or political interference; It also reflects the deep psychological and cultural conditions that have made corruption an essential part of everyday policing over the decades. This aspect of police corruption is particularly dangerous because it goes beyond individual activities of greed or opportunism, and gets absorbed into the collective thinking of both law enforcement officials and the public. In order to effectively address this problem, consideration must be given not only to legal, financial and political factors, but also to how corruption has been adopted, justified and maintained as a social norm.
In many parts of India, there is a latent expectation of money transactions in conversations between citizens and police. Whether it’s filing a First Information Report (FIR), getting a job or passport verified, getting clearance, or seeking protection in cases of theft or assault, bribery has become a common part of these processes. For police officers, asking for money is often considered a natural extension of their rights-limit – a kind of additional benefit that compensates for perceived deficiencies in pay or conditions of work. In the eyes of citizens, bribes are often seen as a necessary truth rather than a moral weakness of the officer; people believe that without money or influence, their complaints will not be filed, investigations delayed, or justice will not be served. This mutual agreement creates a systemic culture in which corruption is expected and tolerated, normalizing illegal behavior at many levels of the police.
The normalization of bribery brings serious psychological consequences for policemen. Young recruited personnel who join the force with the ideals of public service and the desire to protect the law are soon moulded into a culture where corruption is not only tolerated but also promoted. Senior officials, who have been in the system for a long time, often advise newcomers by insisting on staying in the system and following the rules, rather than ethical behavior. Recruiting personnel are taught – directly or indirectly – that it is necessary to engage in bribery to advance in career, job security, and personal safety. Refusal to engage in these activities may result in marginalization, transfer, non-promotion, or harassment from colleagues and senior officials. Over time, this internalization of these norms of corruption erodes the moral values of officials, creating a professional environment where non-ethical behavior becomes the way to work.
Cultural factors also play an important role in perpetuating corruption. Indian society is, in some cases, familiar with non-formal payments as a means of dealing with bureaucratic systems. It is not limited to policing, but it combines with the structural shortcomings of the police force to create a system in which corruption is normalized and institutionalized. Officials may consider taking bribes as an acceptable way to increase income, while citizens may consider it a practical requirement to access legally available services. This cultural acceptance blurs the line between legal and non-legal, making corruption a common practice. The result is a cycle that reinforces itself: as more officials engage in corruption, the idea of its inevitability grows, deepening the practice and making efforts at reform difficult to implement.
Another psychological aspect is the justification of corrupt practices by the authorities. Many officers justify corruption because of low salaries, lack of resources, and the personal cost of joining the police force. This sense of economic and business necessity often translates into a broader moral justification, where authorities consider corruption not a violation of moral norms, but an essential part of their business environment. Over time, these justifications become habitual, and what is initially a survival strategy gradually turns into greed, ambition, and systematic exploitation. In such an environment, officials seeking to work honestly are also caught up in institutional and peer pressure, and are forced to follow non-ethical practices to avoid isolation or career decline.
This cultural and psychological normalization of corruption has serious implications for public trust, institutional integrity and the overall effectiveness of law enforcement. Citizens become more indifferent to the police, seeing them as a hindrance rather than a law and order protector, using money or influence to deal with it. The erosion of this trust reduces cooperation, reduces reporting of crimes and increases social discontent. Moreover, the internalization of corrupt practices within the Force ensures that reforms, whether legally mandated or administratively implemented, meet with enormous resistance. Without addressing these deep-rooted cultural and psychological factors, procedural or structural reforms alone cannot succeed.
Corruption in the Indian police system is not only perpetuated by economic or political pressures, but it is also linked to the deep culture and thinking of corruption. Mutual expectations between officials and citizens, treating illegal payments as normal in society, adopting professional practices and moral reasoning all combine to create an environment in which corruption becomes a common practice. Newly recruited young people adapt to this culture, peer pressure and institutional arrangements further strengthen it, and citizens accept it as a sad but inevitable truth. In order to effectively overcome corruption, efforts at reform must address structural, financial and political interventions, as well as psychological and cultural aspects. Only by changing the environment of the police force and people’s thinking can India create a professional, ethical and accountable law and order system that can earn public trust and respect.
Refusal by police officers to register cases without taking bribe is one of the most serious and serious forms of corruption in the Indian law enforcement system. This practice is not only a violation of moral rules but also a direct violation of the legal obligations enshrined in Indian laws. In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and other related legal regimes, the police are mandated to file First Information Reports (FIRs) without delay for all cognizable offences. This procedure is fundamental to the functioning of the criminal justice system, as it ensures that citizens’ complaints are formally filed, investigations are initiated and legal protection is enforced. When police officers seek payment in return for performing this basic legal duty, they undermine the rule of law and violate the legal rules and ethical principles on which policing must be based.
Despite the clarity of these legal directives, adherence to them is often weak. Internal monitoring mechanisms such as departmental vigilance units or public grievance commissions exist on paper, but they often do not take any concrete action against officials involved in such corruption. Investigation of complaints may be delayed, or prevented by political or institutional pressure. The result is that an environment is created in which officials can refuse to file FIRs or manipulate the case without any fear. In many cases, this lack of accountability is further compounded by corrupt practices enforced or consented to by senior officers inside the police force: junior officers may follow corrupt practices enforced or consented to by senior officers, and informants face loneliness, harassment or penal transfer. Consequently, the moral and legal obligation to act impartially and serve the public becomes secondary to personal gain, professional survival or political convenience.
Refusal to lodge a complaint without bribery has serious implications for the regime, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. Basically, the purpose of law enforcement is to protect civil rights, ensuring that all persons have equal access to legal protection. When filing a complaint becomes dependent on payment, this principle is fundamentally breached. Citizens of economically weaker or marginalized communities are most affected, as they do not have the resources or social capital to meet the bribe demands of the officials. As a result, their complaints are not filed, investigations are delayed or never, and justice becomes something that is available only to those who are economically affluent or have political connections. This creates an unequal system in which rich and influential people remain safe and powerful, while common citizens become vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
Ethically, this practice of soliciting bribes to file FIRs undermines the ethical basis of policing. Police officers have been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting life, property and civil rights. When they misuse this trust for personal financial gain, they not only cheat the victims, but also undermine the legitimacy of the entire institution. Citizens observing these practices may develop a negative view of law enforcement and the state, feeling that the law protects the interests of certain people rather than providing universal protection. This reduction in trust has long-lasting consequences: it reduces cooperation with the police, reduces the reporting of crimes and reduces adherence to legal regulations. Communities, feeling neglected by the formal system of justice, may seek to seek justice through alternative means, which may involve local influencers, factions or delinquent networks, further destabilizing the social system.
Furthermore, the system’s failure to ensure accountability in bribery cases fosters a culture in which crime is encouraged. When criminals understand that the consequences of illegal activities can be avoided by paying money or using political connections, prevention methods are weakened. Offenders operating in such an environment can exploit these vulnerabilities to expand their activities, avoid impunity and corrupt further levels of law enforcement. In effect, the refusal to file an FIR without a bribe creates a double injustice: citizens are denied security and justice, while criminals are encouraged to break the law. Over time, this cycle of corruption, crime and institutional decline becomes stronger, making meaningful reforms difficult to carry out.
Equally important is the widespread impact of this practice on society. By linking access to justice to financial transactions, the police not only undermine the principles of equality and fairness, but also erode the core values of democracy. In a democratic society, the law is meant to provide a fair framework in which all citizens – regardless of their socio-economic status, race, gender or political affiliation – can seek security and justice. The objectification of justice through bribery erodes these principles, creating a system in which rights are unequal and protection is given by choosing. This increases anger, social tension and negativity towards both law enforcement and the state, thereby weakening social cohesion and threatening the stability of governance.
Refusal to register cases without corruption represents a serious problem of police officers, which includes legal violations, moral lapses and deep impact on society. By violating legal regulations and ethical responsibilities, authorities not only frustrate those seeking protection, but also undermine the legitimacy of law enforcement and the rule of law. This practice is continued by weak mechanisms of accountability, political interference and institutional inaction, leading to corruption becoming ingrained in the culture of policing. Its impact is huge: ordinary citizens do not get justice, criminals become fearless, trust in the legal system is reduced and the principles of equality, fairness and democratic governance are weakened. Improving the process alone is not enough to address this challenge; This requires comprehensive measures that strengthen accountability, enforce legal obligations, establish ethical standards and rebuild public trust, so that the police can fulfill their true purpose of guarding justice, and not stand in the way of it.
Corruption in the police system has far-reaching consequences, which go beyond law and order and badly affect the economic stability, social development and overall governance of the society. Bribery and wrongdoing often have repercussions in the form of personal grievances or delays in justice, but the systematics of corruption in the police have effects that not only undermine public trust, but also harm economic development and social equity. A closer look reveals how these interconnected outcomes together hinder the progress of society, increase inequality and weaken the basis of democratic governance in India. Economically, corruption in the police entails both direct and indirect costs for business, investors and local communities. When law and order is no longer trusted or becomes dependent on bribes, businesses face great uncertainty in functioning.
For example, a company resolving disputes, seeking permits or ensuring the safety of its assets may be forced to commit bureaucratic delays or bribe police officers. The cost of these non-formal payments, often without planning and in isolation, increases the operating expenses of businesses, thereby reducing profits and reducing investment. Furthermore, uncertainty associated with police decisions—where adherence to the law is not uniform or biased— creates an unstable business environment. Domestic and foreign investors perceive greater risk in an environment that they avoid investing in areas where police corruption is common. This can lead to a reduction in investment slowing economic growth, reducing jobs and reducing opportunities for social mobility, especially in small towns or economically backward areas. Apart from formal economic matters, the economy of the society is also affected as communities struggle to maintain security and order due to systemic corruption.
Public services dependent on law and order—, such as dispute settlement, traffic regulation or security of public places, become unrestrained or useless. Citizens who cannot expect impartial action on the police employ alternative methods for security and justice, such as private security arrangements, community patrols or non-formal networks. These measures can give local solutions, but they are often over-spending, do not have the same adherence and can exacerbate existing inequalities. Public trust in institutions is low, social cohesion is weak and perceptions of lack of law and order can reduce social and economic participation. In fact, corruption in the police reduces the ability of communities to develop in an orderly, secure and sustainable manner.
Moreover, the corruption prevalent in the police disproportionately affects the weaker sections, further increasing social inequality. Women, marginalized communities, tribal communities and economically vulnerable people are often the most affected, as they do not have the resources, political connections or social capital to make a point in this system of justice. For example, a woman seeking protection from domestic violence or sexual assault may have to pay a bribe or rely on people she knows to file a complaint. Similarly, economically weaker people who are victims of theft, assault or property disputes do not get legal help unless they pay money or can show their influence. The result is that access to justice is decided on the basis of wealth, privilege and social status, thereby undermining the basic principle that law enforcement should provide equal protection to all citizens.
The social consequences of such inequality go far beyond individual grievances, and they create long-lasting patterns of marginalization and exploitation. When vulnerable sections do not receive consistent justice, they become more vulnerable to exploitation, extortion and pressure by criminals and influential people who take advantage of police collusion. Where police corruption is common, land disputes, labor exploitation, gender-based violence and caste-related injustices often go unchecked. This further worsens the situation of marginalized people and perpetuates inequality in the social system, further exacerbating social discrimination and reducing the chances of advancement of marginalized people. Furthermore, the perception that law enforcement can be influenced by money undermines the credibility of democratic institutions, causing frustration, anger and sometimes social unrest among people.
The indirect impact of police corruption on governance is equally serious. When civilians perceive the police as corrupt and irresponsible, they lose confidence not only in law enforcement but also in the wider institutional order of the State. Citizen participation decreases, as people avoid reporting crime, participating in local administration, or relying on state intervention for public welfare. The reduction of this trust also has economic repercussions, as social capital – an essential component for collective action, community development and local enterprise – is reduced. Where law enforcement is not trustworthy or impartial, communities struggle to implement development projects, attract investment or maintain public order, creating a cycle in which economic recession and social deprivation further exacerbate corruption and vice versa.
Moreover, justice being market-oriented undermines the standards of ethics and values in society. When citizens see that law enforcement can be bought or influenced, they can assume that bribery, favoritism, and manipulation are acceptable or necessary to survive. This culturally normalization of corruption also extends beyond policing into social relations, affecting business activities, political engagement, and civic duties. Over time, a society where corruption is tolerated at the institutional level begins to be treated as a rule in everyday life, further increasing inequalities and hindering progress.
Corruption in the police system has serious economic and social consequences. By imposing additional costs on businesses, creating uncertainty for investors and reducing the effectiveness of public services, police corruption directly hinders economic growth. At the same time, it further exacerbates social inequalities by depriving the weaker sections of justice, security and legal aid. The consequences are all the more serious, undermining public confidence, weakening the system of governance and creating an environment where non-moral behaviour returns to normal. Dealing with this problem requires not only structural and legal reforms in law enforcement, but also broader social efforts to strengthen accountability, promote transparency, and ensure that police protect all citizens fairly, not use privileges and power. Only by tackling the economic, social and moral aspects of police corruption can India create a system that is just, effective and truly helpful for development and social justice.
Efforts to eliminate corruption in the Indian Police Department have been going on for decades, but this problem is still deeply rooted. It shows the complex relationship of structural, political, cultural and ethical factors. The Indian police system is one of the oldest and established institutions in the country, whose responsibility is to maintain law and order, investigate crimes and protect the rights of citizens. But, bribery, favouritism and other corrupt practices have led to major impediments to effective governance and justice. To understand the obstacles to reform, it is important to study the system challenges present in the police institution and the broader social and political environment of police functioning.
One of the biggest challenges in reform is the internal resistance of the police force. Corruption has become institutionalized and common over time, creating a culture where bribery is considered an essential part of professional living. New soldiers join the police with ideals of service, but they quickly adapt to ways where they prioritize economic benefits, political loyalty, and career advancement rather than moral behavior. Senior officers tend to promote corrupt practices by giving these new men guidance for integrity, often by direct instruction or tacit approval. This makes internal resistance reform very difficult to implement, as any attempt to challenge established rules often faces opposition, hostility or professional exclusion. Honest officials trying to make a difference can be ignored, transferred or face bureaucratic hurdles, further compounding the cycle of corruption.
Political interference is another major obstacle to reform. In India, police appointments, incumbencies, transfers and promotions are often influenced by politicians at the local and national levels. Officials who live with political interests often receive good treatment, while those who try to work independently or enforce the law impartially may be punished. This direct control of the police by political people takes away both accountability and the integrity of the institution. Even when legal orders or Supreme Court directions talk about reforms, state governments can weaken or ignore them to maintain the situation. The political protection afforded to corrupt officials means that anti-corruption measures, even when implemented, are often useless, because those who monitor their execution are also corrupt.
Structural challenges in police systems make reform efforts more difficult. The police force is often underfunded, overloaded and understaffed, which increases pressure on officers and they try to reduce it through unfair means such as corruption. Low salaries, lack of resources and inadequate support for professional development motivate officials to earn additional income by bribing or colluding with criminals. Measures such as internal vigilance units or anti-corruption agencies also do not work effectively in this situation, as they often have limited authority, understaffed and inadequate technical assistance. In addition, bureaucratic shortcomings and complex procedures in case hearings give officials the chance to exploit citizens’ shortcomings, such as delaying filing FIRs or manipulating investigations by taking money.
Transparency measures such as digitization of records, online FIR registration systems and public complaints portals have been introduced as part of the anti-corruption strategy in some regions. These tools can reduce the power of discretion, limit opportunities for extortion, and increase accountability. However, these have led to some improvements, but corruption has not been completely eradicated. Informal practices, human discretion and personal networks often frustrate technical safeguards. Moreover, the effectiveness of such measures depends on enforcement, monitoring and public awareness, which is not the same in States and regions. Digitization alone cannot change frozen behavioral norms or cultural attitudes that consider bribery mandatory.
Cultural and ethical aspects are perhaps the greatest obstacle to reform. For decades, bribes have become commonplace in negotiations between citizens and police officers. Both sides often consider it part of the normal process. Officials may consider bribes as the benefit of their position or the necessary response to economic pressure, while citizens may consider it an essential truth to access legally available services. This generalization creates a cycle that goes on by itself: new employees learn from senior executives that corruption is commonplace and that the tolerance of the public allows it to continue. Changing this deep-seated mindset requires not only procedural reforms, but also significant cultural and ethical changes in the institution.
Comprehensive reform strategies should remove both structural and cultural barriers. Training programmes focused on ethics, honesty and human rights are essential to sensitize officials to the social consequences of corruption. Incentive systems that reward honesty, competence, and excellent behavior can inspire ethical behavior, reducing the craving for bribes or political pressure. Strong protection for whistleblowers who report wrongdoing is equally important, so that officials who speak out against corruption are not punished for their integrity. Legal and procedural reforms should be accompanied by proactive monitoring, enforcement and accountability mechanisms, including independent monitoring entities to investigate and punish corruption without fear of political or institutional interference.
In addition, public awareness and participation are important components of the reform. Citizens must be aware of their rights and have the right to report incidents of corruption safely and effectively. Civil society organizations, the media and community leaders can play an important role in monitoring the functioning of the police, advocating for accountability and putting pressure on the authorities to implement reforms. Therefore, reform efforts must be multifaceted, addressing legal, institutional, technological, cultural and social factors simultaneously.
The fight against corruption in the Indian Police Department is complex and multifaceted, involving resistance, political interference, structural weaknesses and deep-rooted cultural beliefs within the department. Some progress has been made with measures such as digitization, public grievance mechanisms and internal vigilance, but these alone are not sufficient to eliminate bribery. Successful reform requires a holistic approach, involving cultural, ethical and behavioural changes, accompanied by structural and process reforms. Training programmes, incentive structures, whistleblower protection and public participation are essential components of a comprehensive strategy. Only by addressing both the institutional and human aspects of corruption can India create a police force that is transparent, accountable and capable of serving the public with integrity, professionalism and impartiality.
Reports from citizens across India paint a grim picture of the rampant corruption in the police system. These reports reveal patterns of negligence, bribery and bureaucratic manipulation that override the very purpose of law and order. From petty complaints like theft, assault, fraud, domestic violence and land disputes everywhere, to serious criminal cases, unless any bribe is given, the police often do not pay attention to them, delay them. Or refuses directly. Being forced to pay bribe even just to lodge a complaint shows systemic corruption and the end of the rule of law in the police system of the country. Personal experiences, media reports and civil society investigations show how big this crisis is and how much institutional reform is needed.
The most shocking of the citizens’ reports is that the police do not file First Information Reports (FIRs) without money. FIR is the first step to legally initiate an investigation and it is the responsibility of the police to register it under the Indian criminal justice system. But, in many cases it has come to light that bribes are demanded from common people reporting crimes or they are repeatedly sent to other police stations, so that money can be extorted from them. For example, victims of theft or fraud reported that they visited several police stations for days or weeks, but police officers did not file complaints unless they paid some money depending on the type of complaint. In rural areas, where it is already difficult to get legal help, it gets worse. In such a situation, people are left with either bribe or give up hope of justice.
In addition to procedural constraints, these phenomena also show moral and institutional weakness. Police officers have been given the responsibility of enforcing laws made to protect citizens and maintain social order. When filing a complaint also becomes linked to money, people lose trust in the police. Those who rely on the police for their rights and security feel themselves vulnerable, exploited and ignored. Its emotional and psychological impact on the victims is very deep. When they find out that the security organization itself has become the cause of exploitation, they become victims of despair, helplessness and trauma. This trauma is not limited to just the victim; it also extends to families, neighbours and communities, who witness or experience similar injustices, thereby spreading widely a sense of fear and frustration with the legal system.
The impact of these corruption practices is also widespread on the society. Citizens who repeatedly encounter bribery and obstacles in the police system often come to believe that legal help is available only to the rich, influential or related. This perception further increases social inequality, because marginalized groups – including women, economically weaker people and socially depressed communities – are most affected. Women experiencing domestic violence or sexual assault may be forced to remain silent due to the social stigma associated with filing a complaint and fear of possible harassment or demand for funds by police officers. Similarly, land owners or tenants involved in disputes with powerful people find their grievances unheard, making them more vulnerable to exploitation. This inequality in access to justice continues the cycle of exploitation, undermining social cohesion and undermining the moral legitimacy of State institutions.
This systemic nature of bribery and delays in filing complaints also impacts crime prevention and public safety. When citizens cannot expect the police to investigate crimes promptly and impartially, criminals become fearless, knowing that their crimes will not be punished unless the victims are willing or able to pay bribes. This system creates an environment where law and order breaks down, which further reduces public confidence in the state’s ability to maintain order. Communities may resort to alternative methods of protection such as private security, non-governmental local authority or volunteer measures, which may increase social tensions and deepen inequality. In this context, the role of the police as impartial adjudicators of justice is transformed into a transactional model, where rights depend on payment and influence rather than legal or ethical principles.
Citizen reports also highlight bureaucratic and procedural challenges that exacerbate corruption. Delays in filing complaints, unnecessary transfers between stations, and repeated demands for documents give officials the opportunity to ask for bribes. Citizens often point out that they are referred from one official to another, repeatedly asked for documents or given conflicting instructions, which leads to frustration and fatigue. These practices are not random; they reflect an institutional pattern in which exploitation is organized, and honest officials trying to act honestly may find themselves isolated, harassed, or under pressure to engage in corruption.
Furthermore, the social effects of psychological burden on victims may last longer. The experience of not receiving justice or being forced to pay bribes creates mistrust, despair and hopelessness in society, reducing the moral and civic participation of communities. Victims may lose confidence not only in law enforcement but also in the judiciary, local administration and, more broadly, democratic processes. Over time, this loss of trust undermines unity in society, loosens the rule of law and creates an environment where corruption, crime and social inequality feed each other.
Reports from citizens from across India suggest that corruption in the police is widespread and systemic, especially in filing complaints and FIRs. Demand for bribes, delays and dismissal of cases reflect a culture of institutional shortcomings, political interference and corrupt practices as normal. In addition to procedural incompetence, these practices have a profound emotional and psychological impact on victims, undermining trust in law and order and undermining social cohesion. It also has consequences for public security, social equity and the moral legitimacy of the State. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive reform, including structural, technical and procedural reform, as well as cultural and ethical change, so that the police can perform their basic duty of serving the public impartially, professionally and honestly.
Combating corruption in the Indian police system is a very complex challenge, requiring a comprehensive, multidimensional approach that addresses structural, legal, cultural, technical and political aspects simultaneously. The pervasive nature of corruption, which ranges from small bribes to massive collusion with criminals and political figures, cannot be reconciled by piecemeal reform. A coordinated effort involving institutional restructuring, ethical and cultural change, technological modernization, legal protection and active participation of citizens is essential for meaningful reform. Each of these components is critical to ensuring that the police can perform their duties honestly, professionally and impartially, and that public confidence in law and order is restored.
At the structural level, reforms should address the basic economic and organizational conditions that make corruption attractive or necessary for police officers. Low wages, too much work and lack of staff are common causes of bribery and misconduct. Many officials, especially those in the lower ranks, struggle to meet their daily needs in low pay, thereby encouraging illegal recovery from civilians. By raising wages, granting adequate benefits and ensuring a reasonable workload, the economic pressure that fuels corrupt behaviour can be reduced. In addition, the burden on existing staff could be reduced by increasing the number of staff, enabling the authorities to devote sufficient time and attention to proper investigations and law and order, and not to give priority to personal gain or convenience. Structural reforms should also include clear, transparent and merit-based systems for recruitment, promotion and transfer, thereby reducing the scope for abuse for political or financial gain.
Legal reform is another important step in combating police corruption. Along with officials who demand or take bribes, it is important to provide for strict punishment for those who are biased or collude with criminals. The establishment of independent monitoring bodies with the power to investigate complaints, hold officials accountable and punish is essential to creating a system in which wrongdoing has serious consequences. To ensure impartiality and effectiveness, these bodies must operate without any interference from the political authorities or the internal system. Furthermore, simplifying procedures and standardizing protocols can reduce discretion, which often leads to corruption. For example, digitization of FIR registration, case tracking and verification processes can help reduce opportunities for harassment, extortion or delay.
However, structural and legal reforms alone are not enough without addressing the cultural and ethical aspects of policing. Corruption is deeply ingrained in the internal culture of many police departments, where bribery is common and honesty is often undervalued. Ethical training and continuing professional development should form a core part of policing education, emphasizing the importance of public service, accountability and human rights. Recognition and reward for honesty should be institutionalized to encourage ethical behavior, while providing protection from retaliation to officials who expose wrongdoing. Public awareness campaigns can also change society’s thinking, educate citizens about their legal rights, encourage reporting of wrongdoing, and create an environment in which bribery and corruption are socially unacceptable. A culture that prioritizes integrity, both inside the organization and in society, is essential for long-term change.
Technology can play an important role in preventing corruption and increasing transparency. The digital complaint registration system, online tracking of case progress and real-time monitoring of police activities reduce discretion, which often promotes bribery. Mobile applications, public complaints portals and automated verification processes enable citizens to interact with law enforcement in a transparent and accountable manner, reducing opportunities for harassment or extortion. In addition, data analysis can be used to identify patterns of corruption, detect irregularities in case handling and support internal investigations, making the implementation of accountability mechanisms more efficient and fairer. While technical solutions are not a panacea, they do provide an essential tool for modernizing policing practices and strengthening the integrity of the institution.
Political will is perhaps the most important factor in ensuring successful reform. Corruption in the police is often associated with political patronage, where officers build relationships with influential leaders or local leaders to avoid better posting, promotion, or accountability. Without a true commitment from the top levels of government to implement fair policing and fight corruption, structural, legal and technical reforms will not reach their full potential. Political leaders must show a willingness to remove officials involved in corrupt practices, support independent monitoring and avoid the lure of abusing the police for political gain. Reform efforts require sustained commitment, courage and prioritization of the public interest rather than political gains.
Civilians also play an important role in supporting anti-corruption initiatives in law enforcement. Public participation is essential to holding the police accountable, reporting wrongdoing, and participating in civic programs that promote transparency and honesty. Whether they are inside or outside the police, informants must be supported and protected to expose and deal with the corrupt. Civil society organizations, the media and community groups can raise public concerns, advocate for systemic reforms and monitor the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. A conscious, vigilant and vigorous civil society is essential to creating the social and political pressure needed to sustain meaningful reform.
Combating corruption in the Indian police system requires a multidimensional, integrated approach that includes structural reforms, legal protection, moral and cultural change, technological modernization, political commitment and active citizen participation. Improvements in salaries, work-conditions and staff tackle the economic causes of corruption; strengthening monitoring, penalties and procedural transparency ensure accountability; cultural initiatives promote honesty and professionalism in the force; and technology provide tools for monitoring and preventing corruption. Political will is essential to implement reform, dismantle conservation networks and avoid abuse, while public participation supports transparency and accountability. Only by dealing with these interlinked aspects can India hope to create a capable, impartial and respected police force – one that truly serves the people and strengthens the principles of justice, equality and the rule of law.
The general perception that police departments in India do not file cases without bribes is not just a reflection of a few incidents, but a symptom of deep structural, political and cultural challenges that have been going on for decades. This perception, supported by citizens’ experiences, media reports and civil society studies, has a serious impact on governance, social cohesion and the functioning of democracy. When ordinary citizens consider that justice is dependent on bribes, the law enforcement’s legitimacy – and, consequently, that of the state – are badly undermined. People lose trust in the institution, whose job it is to protect their rights and protect them from crime, leading to widespread frustration and distrust beyond personal interaction with the police.
Structurally, there are many chronic problems in the Indian police system that promote this perception and in many cases make it a reality. The police force is often underfunded, understaffed, and has heavy responsibility ranging from daily law and order maintenance to organized crime, social unrest, and administrative duties. Low salaries and lack of resources put a lot of economic and operational pressure on officials, causing some officials to indulge in corruption to increase their income. This structural weakness coupled with bureaucratic and complex procedures creates opportunities for exploitation, whereby the authorities can delay, dismiss or manipulate the registry of complaints by taking bribes.
Political interference only exacerbates the problem. At the local, state, and national levels, politicians often influence police appointment, incumbency, transfer, and promotion. Officers who do not comply with political expectations may be harassed, transferred or may not progress in their careers, while those who cooperate with political interests often receive rewards. This relationship between the police and political authorities undermines fairness, prevents honesty and reinforces a system in which bribes become a practical way to survive. Even though Supreme Court directives or policy recommendations advocate independent and accountable policing, their implementation is often undermined or ignored because of the clout of political considerations.
The normalization of bribery in the police force and society is another important factor sustaining this perception. For decades, both officers and citizens have come to consider money transactions as a common thing in interactions with police. Young people joining the force often adopt corrupt methods by imitating senior colleagues, while citizens reluctantly follow, considering bribery an essential reality. This self-amplifying cycle ensures that corruption is deeply embedded in the daily workings of policing, making it difficult to implement and sustain reform. Acceptance of bribes as a rule leads to a decline in moral standards, reduced accountability and a climate in which the principle of justice becomes dependent on money, influence or relations rather than fairness or legal authority.
This common problem is neither easy to solve nor can it happen immediately. There is a need to make coordinated and consistent efforts in the legal, administrative and social fields to improve the police system. Structural changes such as improving wages, improving working conditions and increasing the number of employees can reduce the economic incentive for corruption. To ensure accountability, legal measures such as independent monitoring bodies, strict punishment for wrongdoings and a simple complaint filing process are necessary. Cultural and ethical changes, such as frequent training, the promotion of integrity and public awareness campaigns, must also be prioritized in order to change the behaviour of officials and the thinking of citizens. The use of technology such as digitizing records, real-time monitoring of actions and reducing opportunities for arbitrary tampering in cases can support these initiatives.
Political will is very important. Without fair policing and the commitment of government officials to eliminate corruption, structural and legal reforms will not be able to show their full effect. Similarly, citizens also play an important role by demanding transparency, supporting informants and actively participating in civic initiatives to strengthen police integrity. Public confidence in law and order can be restored only through joint efforts combining institutional reform, moral strengthening, technical assistance and citizen participation. Until such comprehensive measures are implemented, the perception and reality of bribery in cases will hinder justice, social inequality will persist and the foundation of a democratic society in India will continue to weaken.
Therefore, the notion of bribery is not just an administrative problem, but it is a serious social concern. It is important to restore trust in the police to uphold the principles of justice, equality and fairness and to allow citizens to trust the law without fear of exploitation. Without meaningful reform, the cycle of corruption will continue, undermining democracy and the rule of law.
Read Also:
In today's connected world, our phones and the Internet open up countless possibilities. For many…
In today's fast digital world, pornography is more easily available than ever. For many years,…
Masturbation and pornography are topics that cause a variety of reactions from curiosity to anxiety…
In this article we have provided information about the Indian space programme. The information given…
In this article we have provided information about importance of technology. The information given here…
If you also use earphones or AirPods all the time, then be careful. Further let…