The systematic reluctance of the Indian police in opening a case without bribery or corruption is deeply inherent in combination with historical, administrative, socio-political and economic reasons that have developed over time. This culture of corruption began in the colonial period, especially with the implementation of the Indian Police Act of 1861, which established a police force that was mainly accountable to political authorities rather than citizens. This model focused on more control than service, which laid the foundation of uncontrolled power and misuse.
By the 1970s and 1980s, political interference in police functioning increased considerably, especially with the rise of coalition politics. The politicians started using police forces for personal and political gains, offering job security or exemption in return. This led to a culture where an FIR (first information report) was not filed without the influence of power or money.
Since the 1990s, liberalization brought economic opportunities, but also increased income inequalities. Low salary and poor working conditions between lower level officials created an atmosphere where taking bribe became a means of living. At the same time, the growing disillusionment of the public with the judicial system made the “hidden payment” normal to speed up processes.
In the 2010 and 2020s, with increasing crime and investigation of media, bribe became a means for police to take or ignore select cases, especially in cases related to civil controversies, land matters and influential persons. Thus, a corrupt system remains, where many cases are not registered or intentionally ignored, without bribery or effect.
1. Colonial roots of police structure
The Indian police system was formalized through the Indian Police Act of 1861, passed by the British colonial rulers soon after the first freedom struggle of 1857. This rebellion shook the control of the British Empire over India, and to prevent further rebellions, the British implemented a police structure that preferred the security of the state compared to public welfare. The structure was military, hierarchical and oppressive. Its main objective was to monitor the original residents, intimidate them and suppress them, not to serve or protect them.
The Act legally empowered the police to act as an armed branch of colonial administration rather than a civil service agency. Officers were provided wide discretionary powers, while the general public had almost no rights or security. The District Magistrate and the British officer used to control the police, which left no place for transparency or civil accountability.
After India got independence in 1947, this colonial structure was retained without any significant improvement. Although various commissions such as the National Police Commission (1977–1981) recommended changes, most of the reforms remained limited to papers only. The law of 1861, which is more than 160 years old, is still a basic law controlling police behavior in India.
As a result, today Indian police often demonstrate the colonial mentality, and consider themselves as a ruler instead of considering the public servant. The hierarchical system prefers power rather than service, causing an atmosphere where bribery and abuse of power have become common. This structure has made corruption deeply institutional, where police services are seen as a favor in exchange for bribe, not rights.
2. Lack of accountability system
After India’s independence in 1947, whereas a democratic constitution was adopted in 1950, no important system was formed to justify police officers for corruption, misconduct or negligence. Unlike many developed democracy, India did not establish independent inspection bodies with real power to monitor police misconduct.
In most Indian states, complaints against police officers are settled by the police department itself. For example, if a constable refuses to register an FIR without bribe, the police of the same police station or district often review the case. This self-pulsing model gives rise to partiality, bias and leapi, and in most cases no real punishment is found.
Many high-level committees-such as Reibero Committee (1998), Padmanabhaiya Committee (2000), and Malimath Committee (2003)-have recommended to establish Police Grievance Authority (PCA) at district and state levels. However, the implementation has been weak. Even states where PCAs have been made, they also have enforcement power, lack of employees or funds.
The absence of real accountability has encouraged the authorities to refuse to register an FIR, harass the victims, or even torture criminals without any fear. For decades, the absence of disciplinary action for misconduct has given a clear message to the policemen: corruption is tolerated until it is embarrassed by political masters. This has become one of the main reasons that bribe is also considered necessary to start basic legal processes.
3. Political intervention in police work
After independence in 1947, the newly formed Government of India had the opportunity to make the police force an independent, non-political institution. However, from the beginning of the 1950s, political intervention in police functioning was deeply rooted. The Indian police remain under the control of the state governments, where Chief Ministers and Home Ministers have significant rights on appointments, posting and promotion.
Instead of maintaining justice and maintaining law and order impartially, police officers are often used as a weapon to protect the police officers to protect the disagreement by ruling political parties, target opposition leaders, and their loyalists, even if they are criminals. Honest officers who refuse to follow political orders are punished by repeated transfer, suspension or promotion, while corrupt officials who are politically loyal are rewarded.
For example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarkaria Commission (1983) and later Prakash Singh vs India (2006) stressed the need to keep the police separated from political influence. Despite the clear guidelines of the formation of the State Security Commission and the tenure of the officials, very few states have implemented these instructions honestly.
It promotes bribery bribery. Officials feel that in order to get good posting, they have to give “money” to politicians or “serve” them. In return, they earn money by taking bribe from citizens who have to get any police work done. This becomes a series of exploitation in which both political leaders and corrupt officials are benefited, while the general public is unable to get justice without bribing or going to someone sitting in power.
4. “Rate card” system inside police stations
Around the 1970s, there were reports about an informal but consistent “rate card” system inside police stations from all over India. Although no documentation has been officially done, these rates are widely known within the citizens and even the police force. The rate card refers to the informal bribe required to complete various police functions.
For example:
• ₹ 500-1,000 to file missing documents or phone reports
• ₹ 2,000-5,000 to register an FIR in a criminal case
• ₹ 5,000-10,000 to take action on FIR and arrest someone
• ₹ 10,000 or more to avoid arrest or remove your name from FIR
This system often serves as a mediator through lower level employees such as constables, head constables, or police agents (brokers). The bribe is divided among various employees. Many times, senior officials are either aware of this corrupt system or benefit from it, which becomes a regular part of the police station operations.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the situation worsened due to increasing economic inequality and increase in contact with police-public with urbanization. Instead of improving public service distribution, corruption was organized. Common people are now expected to pay for basic services, which has made bribery an accepted reality rather than an exception.
This rate card model indicates that the police in India is not randomly random, but is organized, consistent and deeply rooted, which affects every aspect of police-policy contact and weakens public confidence in criminal justice system.
5. low salary and poor working conditions
Since the 1980s, concerns have been increasing about the low salary, poor work situations and excessive workloads of policemen working in lower positions, especially like Indian policemen, constables and head constables. Despite fulfilling heavy responsibilities, these officers often get less salary than private sector skilled workers.
For example, till some improvement by the Sixth Pay Commission (2006) and the Seventh Pay Commission (2016), many policemen used to earn less than ₹ 10,000 per month, making them to do other jobs or bribes for living. Constables often work in a shift of 12–16 hours, they are very low, they live in inferior barracks and face physical and mental stress. Facilities like healthcare, hygiene and training are also extremely insufficient.
The National Human Rights Commission and Police Research and Development Bureau of Development (BPRD) regularly paid attention to how police stress, long hours and lack of modern equipment affect their morale. However, governments have not invested enough in police welfare.
As a result, many policemen consider bribery to be a “additional income”, not corruption, but a “additional income” required for living and family. They justify the behavior on the basis that the system does not respect or reward their work. The result is institutional corruption, where the need for money is overshadowed by professional morality, and the public has to suffer the consequences of this useless system.
6. Fear in common people
Since the early 1990s, the fear of people towards the police in India, especially in lower and middle class citizens, is becoming increasingly widespread. This fear is not unnecessary-it is based on the reality and perceived incidents of torture, abusive, ego, wrong arrests and general misconduct in custody. Although the work of the police is to protect the public, but the experience of many people is the opposite. Since the 1990s, especially private TV news and later the rise of social media, news reports and shared personal stories have increased these scary stories further.
Now even educated urban citizens hesitate to go to the police station, especially if they have no political relations or influence. They are afraid that they will either be ignored, they will be harassed, or forced to bribe them to file a complaint. The situation is worse in rural areas and small cities, where the police often act like local rulers rather than government employees.
This deep fear empowers corrupt police officers because they know that most people are very afraid of retaliation or questioning illegal behavior. This creates a power imbalance, where the authorities can openly refuse to take action without bribing or deliberately delay justice. Over time, this fear-based control has reduced public confidence and has made corruption invisible, as people are also afraid to report it. Thus, fear of police developed since the 1990s has become one of the major causes of systematic bribery.
7. Fake FIR and Culture of False Affairs
From the mid -1990s, especially after the increasing politicization of the police, the misuse of the FIR (First Information Report) system became worryingly common. Although FIR is a powerful legal means of security and justice of citizens, it has been corrupted for money and impact. Today, a false FIR can be lodged against innocent people only because the complainant has given money to the police to do so.
This practice began to grow during the period of 1995–2000, especially in urban areas, where land prices were rising and political rivalry was intense. For example, in land disputes, people used to pay money to police officers to register fake cases of assault, encroachment or fraud against their enemies.
Similarly, in family disputes or commercial rivalry, people misused the FIR system to harass others or increase their influence. Instead of acting as a fair investigator, many police officers started working as the highest bidder agent.
Meanwhile, the real victims remained helpless. They often had to pay a “protection bribe” to protect them from registering false FIRs against him or to bribe the authorities to be taken seriously. The danger here is that the FIR, which should be the door of justice, has become a means of extortion. Since 1995, this trend has become worse and has now become so widespread that many legal experts openly admit that the police FIR system has been made weapons for corruption.
8. Bribery in complaints of cyber crime
With a rapid increase in digital transactions and internet use in the 2010s, cyber crime became a major threat to Indian citizens. From 2010 to 2020, crimes like online banking fraud, fake loan app, digital blackmail, UPI scam, fishing email and job fraud increased rapidly. In response, the Government of India established cyber crime cells in many districts and encouraged online reporting through platforms like cybercrime.gov.in.
However, despite these measures, the victims often complain that their complaints are not taken seriously until bribes are given. Police officers often tell the victims:
• “It did not happen in our area.”
• “This amount is very low for checking.”
• “This is a civil matter, not criminal.”
Nevertheless, when the money is offered, the same complaint is recorded in minutes. Victims of online UPI fraud or sexuality schemes have complained that even after showing the bank statement and call records, the FIR is refused without giving “tea-water”. In some cases, cyber fraudsters escape and the victims are financially ruined.
This trend of bribery in cyber crime complaints after 2016, especially after demonetisation, became more clear when digital payments broke. Despite moving steps towards digital rule in India, cyber crime response units are working with the same corrupt practices. The modern nature of crime has not changed the old mentality of the authorities, which even today seek bribes to start the most basic form of digital investigation.
9. Torture in custody to take bribe
Almost since 2015, several reports have come to light that the police not only use the crime, but also torture in custody to recover bribes from the families of the accused. Although the Supreme Court of India and the National Human Rights Commission have repeatedly condemned torture in custody, it remains a common and cruel practice in the Indian police stations.
In many cases, those arrested-sometimes on weak or false basis-are tortured mentally and physically inside the lockup. Torture methods include beating with sticks, electric shocks, depriving of food, forcibly confessing to crime and threatening to make additional false allegations. The families are then pressured to bribe better treatment, to remove bail or allegations quickly.
However, bail is a legal process that the courts handle, many police officers mislead the families by assuring that the police can directly “bail” in lieu of money. This illegal transaction has become a major source of income for corrupt officials. Several deaths detained in states like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Punjab have a deep connection with the torture arrangements for bribery.
The most shocking case took place in 2020 in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, where father-son Jayaraj and Benix died after a brutal torture in police custody. After this, there was anger in the public, but there was no significant change in the system. Since 2015, this form of corruption has become even more dangerous because it not only exploits citizens economic, but also violates basic human rights and life rights.
10. “No action” without bribe in cases of theft
Since the early 2000s, there has been a trend in the Indian police stations where the victims of small theft and robbery are ignored until they bribe. Mobile snatching, motorcycle theft, householding in the house or common crimes like breach in shops are often not registered as police officers do not include them in cases of “low priority” until they get money in advance.
The victims are asked to “leave the complaint by writing,” and no FIR is lodged. In many cases, CCTV footage and witnesses’ statements are also ignored. Usually excuse is made:
• “we are very busy.”
• “We have no clue.”
• “This is a small case.”
However, when bribes are given-the name of tea-water, “help for fuel” or “case fee”-then an FIR is filed and investigation begins. This practice discourages common citizens by filing a theft report, resulting in low reporting of crime and lows of conviction. Most theft cases are eventually “closed for lack of evidence”.
This problem began to appear very much after 2010, especially in urban areas, where mobile theft and vehicle theft incidents increased rapidly. Nevertheless, instead of improving the response systems, the police departments allowed this bribe-carriage system to flourish. The result is that now citizens have become confident that until they pay money, the police will do nothing, even if they have clear evidence.
11. Suppression of legal matters for rich and powerful people
Since near 2005, India has seen a worrying growth in cases where rich businessmen, politicians, celebrities and criminal gangs use their money or political influence to suppress legal matters. The police manipulate the law in favor of the rich, rather than acting as a neutral law promoter, often delaying investigation, destroying evidence or completely dismissing the allegations.
The first promoted pattern of this corruption revealed in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case (2005), where political intervention and police rigging delayed the investigation for years. Similarly, in many rapes and attack cases such as Unnao rape case (2017) and Hathras case (2020), the victims faced a lot of difficulty in registering an FIR, while being politically involved, the accused continued to protect the accused until the media drew national attention.
Such practices reflect two-level justice system in India. For poor and powerless people, filing a simple complaint also becomes a challenge. For the rich, the police system becomes a weapon of rigging. Bribe is used to erase evidence, silence witnesses or affect forensic report.
This inequality violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. However, in practice, policing is governed by how much money or power does a person has, not the merit of his case. Since 2005, commercialization of justice through police corruption has become so common that many people no longer expect equality from law enforcement agencies.
12. Strategy of delay in bribery pressure
Since 2010, a subtle but effective way of taking bribe in Indian police stations has become common – intentionally use a strategy of delay. Instead of directly asking for money, many officials pull the complaint or investigation process longer and disappoint the victims until the complainant is desperately ready to bribe to accelerate the action.
This strategy is widely used in property disputes, where the police refuse to register an FIR without unnecessary paperwork, demand irrelevant documents, or determine the time to meet many times. In cases of cyber crime, they can say that there are no digital evidence in the complaint, even if the aggrieved transactions provide screenshots and phone numbers. In cases of domestic misconduct or sexual harassment, women are asked to “compromise” or wait for inquiries, which do not proceed without paying bribes.
The delay-rich cycle works as this:
1. The victim files a complaint.
2. Police raises objections or delays the acknowledgment.
3. The victim is called repeatedly, but no result is found.
4. Finally, the victim is asked to directly or indirectly to “help” or “collaborate” – a type of bribe.
5. Any progress is made only after payment.
Since 2010, as corruption has raised pace with growing public awareness and media attention, this indirect recovery technique became a common method for corrupt officials. It is less risky than asking for direct money and is more disappointing for the victims, making them feel powerless. The final goal remains the same: refusal to justice until it is purchased.
13. A series of internal corruption among officials
In the early 2010s, especially around 2012, several whistleblowers and investigative journalists began to highlight the existence of an organized internal corruption chain within police departments in many Indian states. The series acts like a pseudo-financial system, where junior officers such as constables and sub-inspectors are expected to share a part of their bribe income with their immediate seniors. This series moves upwards, sometimes even top district authorities.
This system works as follows:
• Constable or head constable, who collect bribe (for complaints, bail, FIR) from the public, gives a part to the station in -charge (SHO).
• SHO, in turn, sends a part of the jurisdiction (CO) or Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
• In some areas, District Superintendent of Police (SP) also knows about monthly recovery.
Such “sharing models” ensure that no one exposes the other, as all are equally guilty. This organized corruption persists through the trap of trust, fear and political protection. If an honest officer tries to break this series or report it, it is transferred, harassed, isolated, or false allegations are also made.
Some brave officers like Sanjeev Bhatt (Gujarat), Rahul Sharma (Gujarat) and Rajneesh Rai (Assam) tried to highlight the internal police corruption, but faced a strong response. Since 2012, these organized structure has become even stronger, causing bribery to become a part of the institution’s operating model – like the financial pyramids of the mafia style.
14. Despite court orders, lack of police reforms
In 2006, the Supreme Court of India ordered the implementation of seven major police reforms to ensure autonomy, accountability and professionalism in the historical case of Prakash Singh vs India Union, in the historical case of Prakash Singh vs India. These reforms were included:
• Establishment of State Security Commissions
• Ensuring a fixed term for major police officers
• Separating investigation from law and order
• Police Grievance Authority (PCA) establishment at the state and district level
The court directed both the central and state governments to implement these changes immediately. However, even after 18 years, the reaction has been very poor. By 2024, only a few states have partially followed it, and most have created weak, powerless bodies that have no real purpose.
The main reason for this resistance is the reluctance of political and bureaucracy. Politicians want to maintain control of police appointments, transfers and investigations, as this gives them a chance to use police for private and party agenda. Senior officials also often oppose reforms from fear of losing internal impact and control.
Due to this resistance, the existing colonial style structure continues, causing bribery-based policing model flourishing. Officers are not evaluated with their honesty or efficiency, but from how well they fulfill political expectations and how to earn money. If Prakash Singh reforms had been properly implemented after 2006, many systemic corruption issues could have been resolved today. Unfortunately, the court orders were either ignored or weakened, which strengthened a system where corruption is protected by both silence and status quo.
15. Police bribery in sexual harassment and rape cases
Since the 2010s, victims of rape, molestation and sexual harassment in India have not only been traumatized by crime, but have also faced insults and forced recovery in the hands of police officers. Instead of providing assistance, many police stations refuse to register an FIR until the family bribes. In many cases, authorities have demanded money to “settle” or “priority” the case, especially in rural areas or small cities.
Despite the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case, which created nationwide resentment and resulting in stringent laws like the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, corruption continues at the ground level. The police often asks irrelevant, insensitive questions about the victim’s clothes, behavior or previous relationships. This not only makes the victim embarrassed, but also delays justice or is rejected.
In many high-profile cases-Kathua rape (2018) and Unnao rape case (2017)-Initial resistance to filing FIRs or taking time on time was associated with police inaction, bribery or political influence. This system started working only when media coverage or social workers intervened, or when families bribed.
This culture adds another level of psychological trauma to the victims already suffering deep sorrows. This indicates that even in heinous crimes like rape, the police system prioritizes more money than human rights and laws, which proves how deep corruption has been since the 2010s.
16. Corruption in bail and remand proceedings
Since 2018, reports received from across India have been increasing the trend that police officers manipulate remand procedures, medical formalities and station diaries instead of bribery. Although the judiciary controls the bail, 24 to 48 hours before the arrest of a suspect is often managed by the police. During this critical time, the rights of the accused and their goodness depends largely on the discretion of the police.
In many cases, the families of the accused or their lawyers pay police officers to ensure that:
• The accused should not be physically tortured.
• Medical check should be done properly.
• Entries in the station diary should be in favor of the accused.
• The remand report protects against unnecessary complications.
This “service” is not a part of official duty, but is only provided when bribe is given. Those who cannot pay, they have to suffer the following pains: illegal custody, third-degree torture, or concoction remand report. It mockens the rule and judicial impartiality of the law.
Although some High Courts have issued notices regarding detention processes and transparency (especially after the deaths after 2018), the actual ground situation is still irregular and inspired by bribery. Such secret corruption converts the judicial process into accessible luxury only for the rich, weakens the idea of equal access to justice and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
17. Transfer and promotion inspired by bribery
From around 2016, many RTIs (Right to Information) revelations, sting operations and media reports began to highlight how police transfer and promotion are now not on the basis of merit or public service, but on the basis of money and political relations. In many states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, it was revealed that officials give millions of or crores of rupees to political middlemen, MLAs or senior bureaucrats to get attractive posting in urban areas, border districts or crime-prone areas, where bribes can be easily recovered.
Officers who refuse to participate in this system often:
• Moved to remote, rural or conflict areas.
• Non-interaction or inactive positions are appointed.
• To break their continuity and morale, it is repeatedly transferred.
This “investment model” of transfer and promotion encourages officers to indulge in corruption at the ground level to recover the amount paid by them. For example, an officer who has paid ₹ 10 lakh for posting in the city can get it back by seeking bribe in cases of theft, traffic or drugs.
Since 2016, the matter has reached the Supreme Court in cases such as the Punjab Police transfer scam (2021). However, political control over police services keeps on protecting this system. Ultimately, the public has to pay the price, as honesty is punished and corruption is rewarded through the politics of institutional wealth within the police force.
18. Security gang operated by police himself
Since 2020, reports have been increasing that police officers themselves run security gangs – an organized form of corruption where local businesses, illegal operators or small criminals are allowed to work in exchange for a regular bribe called “monthly”.
These gangs work like this:
• Illegal liquor sellers, unauthorized street vendors, sex rackets or gambling are openly run.
• Police officers charge a fixed “rent” or “security amount” on a monthly basis.
• In turn, the police ignore illegal activities or alert criminals before raids.
During the lockdown of 2020 during the Kovid-19 epidemic, due to increasing economic tension and being more aggressive of local gangs, these practices came to light. Police officers were caught taking bribe from them in many states:
• Illegal -operated spa and massage parlor.
• Sand and mining mafia.
• Liquor traders during the prohibition of alcoholism.
In many places, police stations openly used the term “monthly recovery”, which shows how institutional and organized this forced recovery has become. Instead of implementing the law, the police is now promoting crime for profit.
These protection gangs show that corruption is not limited to taking bribes for services, but also a case of alliances between crime and law enforcement agencies, where crime is allowed to flourish in exchange for money, which completely reversed justice.
19. Refusal to register FIR in fraud and scam cases
With the rapidly in digital financial fraud, UPI scam, sex -cutting, fake job proposal and online loan app scams, more people are traveling to police stations for help than ever. However, a worrying tendency has come to light from 2022 – police refuses to file an FIR in such cases until the victim bribes.
The usually made excuses are as follows:
• “There is no cyber cell here.”
• “It has been online, so it is out of our jurisdiction.”
• “You will not get your money back anyway.”
• “You have to contact the bank, not the police.”
But when the money is secretly given, the same FIR is immediately registered and action starts. This trend has also been seen in cities and small cities like Delhi, Jaipur, Lucknow, Bangalore. Hunters of job fraud or fake investment apps often complain on social media and platforms such as cybercrime.gov.in, but they either get no concrete reply or have no action.
Refusal to register a digital fraud FIR, especially when online crime has become the most common crime in India, ends trust in law enforcement agencies. There has been an increase in the number of cyber crime complaints, but the official FIRs are ratiolessly low, which proves that the police prioritize bribes more than legal duty, even in technically advanced crimes.
20. Reality – Price of Justice
By 2025, the bitter truth of the police system in India is this: there is a price of justice. Whether someone is robbery, attack, rape, cyber fraud or even murder, police assistance is rarely available. Until the complainant is rich, politically connected or media supported, he is either ignored, harassed, or forced to bribe his case.
This is not a case of “some bad people”. From the bottom (constable and clerk) to the top (SHO, SP, DGP), the entire structure is corrupt. Bribery has become institutional, lack of accountability, political intervention, old colonial laws and social apathy. Every step – registering an FIR, investigation, collection, forensic report, arrest, or even police protection – now mooded.
The common man is the most afflicted. They are forced to hold an endless struggle with the system or by giving bribe to compromise the principles. This eliminates faith in democracy, violates fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21, and promotes chaos and disappointment.
Until meaningful reforms are implemented-such a price will remain on the implementation of Prakash Singh’s instructions, increasing the accountability of the public and breaking the political-police alliance-the price will remain on the new. And in the country where justice is sold, democracy is only pretense, not reality.
Read Also:
The number of internet users in India is more than 560 million, which is the…
Cyber crime is a crime that involves computers and networks. Finding any computer at a…
As the world is moving forward in the field of digitalization, the threat of cyber…
Digital world creates conditions where nothing remains confidential or secret.’ Has the present world really…
‘Cybercrime in India’ is the term used to describe criminal activities involving a computer or…
Police is an organization of the government, which has to work promptly to maintain law…