Corruption in the Indian police refers to the abuse of power, position and authority by police officers for personal gain or advantage, often at the expense of justice, public confidence and law enforcement. Corruption in the police force is multifaceted, with its roots in systemic, social, economic and political factors, which collectively create an environment where unethical behaviours flourish. Essentially, police corruption can be defined as a deviation from professional ethics and legal standards, where officers engage in activities such as taking bribes, falsifying cases, protecting criminals, abusing discretionary powers, or colluding with political and criminal entities.
One of the major causes of corruption is low remuneration and poor working conditions, which make officials financially vulnerable and make them susceptible to taking bribes or engaging in illegal activities. Along with this, there is also a lack of accountability and weak internal oversight, which allows officers to act without fear despite knowing that complaints or investigations against them are often delayed, ignored or influenced by senior officers. is done. Corruption is further deepened by political interference, where officials are forced to serve the interests of politicians or ruling parties rather than the law, creating an environment where loyalty to power outweighs honesty.
A culture of bribery is widespread, often seen as commonplace as a means of speeding up procedures or avoiding punitive action, while citizens themselves sometimes voluntarily participate in corrupt practices in order to obtain services faster. Furthermore, nepotism and favoritism in promotions and postings encourages officials to engage with influential individuals rather than maintain ethical standards. Structural factors such as overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate resources and outdated technology also contribute to this, as these provide opportunities for authorities to exploit procedural shortcomings or manipulate results.
Social and cultural elements, such as public tolerance of corruption and the historical legacy of bureaucratic misconduct, reinforce these behaviors, making it difficult for honest policing to survive. Furthermore, fear of reprisals from criminals, political activists or powerful local figures discourages authorities from resisting unethical practices. Other important factors include weak business ethics training, ineffective citizen surveillance, and the absence of protection of informants, which collectively reduce the risk of corrupt acts and continue the cycle of misconduct.
1. Low salaries – A major cause of corruption in the Indian police force There is an issue of low salary. Despite the high responsibility and significant risks associated with their duties, many police officers receive relatively modest salaries. This financial pressure can make officials more vulnerable to accepting bribes, extortion or other illegal sources of income to meet their basic needs or maintain the desired standard of living. This problem becomes even more acute for authorities in small towns or rural areas, where additional income opportunities are limited. In addition, officials who have to provide for their families, including children’s education, medical needs and household expenses, face constant pressure. In such circumstances, the temptation to compromise professional ethics in exchange for immediate financial relief prevails. Low salaries, coupled with lack of timely promotion and recognition, can discourage honest officers to a great extent, indirectly leading to corruption in policing.
2. Political Impact – Political interference in policing is a major cause of corruption in India. Police officers are often under pressure from politicians who demand favourable treatment for themselves, their supporters or their colleagues. Such pressure can manifest itself in various forms, such as being instructed to dismiss cases, delay investigations, manipulate evidence or avoid the arrest of certain persons. This undermines the fundamental principle of fair law enforcement and creates an environment where authorities prioritize political allegiance over justice. Political influence not only reduces public confidence, but also makes officials more dependent on personal relationships or bribes to carry out their work safely. Additionally, officials who resist political pressure may face relocation, demotion, or harassment, further encouraging complicity. Over time, the constant interference of politicians fosters a culture in which corruption becomes commonplace, and police officers operate in a system where moral enforcement becomes secondary to political self-interest.
3. Lack of accountability – Another important factor behind corruption in the Indian police system is the lack of effective accountability mechanisms. Many police actions are rarely monitored, and internal monitoring is often weak or ineffective. Complaints against officials, whether of citizens or colleagues, are often delayed, ignored, or insufficiently investigated. The absence of prompt corrective action creates a sense of impunity, allowing corrupt practices to continue unabated. Officials who commit bribery, abuse of power, or other unlawful acts often do so on the assumption that they will suffer little or no consequences. Additionally, mechanisms such as internal vigilance units, grievance cells, or citizen review boards are often understaffed, underfunded, or under the influence of higher authorities, further weakening accountability. Without strong monitoring, documentation, and punishment for unethical behavior, corruption becomes systemic rather than isolated, and authorities learn that dishonest acts can go hand in hand with a secure professional life.
4. Bribery Culture – A widespread culture of bribery has taken root in many sectors of the Indian police force, which is promoting corruption. In such a culture, money or favors have become commonplace to avoid services, concessions, or legal consequences. Citizens may be expected to pay bribes to register their complaints, expedite cases, or avoid arrests, while authorities may routinely accept financial incentives to condone violations. This culture often begins with petty compromises and gradually degenerates into the rampant corruption that pervades the various levels of the police force. Over time, young or new officers learn that taking bribes is a common practice, undermining moral behavior and reducing the motivation for honest policing. The culture of bribery undermines public confidence, undermines the legal system, and enables criminals to operate with relative impunity, as monetary transactions can often bypass legal scrutiny, creating a cycle of corruption that is difficult to break.
5. Poor working conditions – Poor working conditions in the police force encourage corruption. Many officers face inadequate resources, outdated or inadequate equipment and poorly maintained facilities, making day-to-day policing difficult. Additionally, officials are often tasked with overloading, including managing large populations, dealing with high crime rates, and performing administrative tasks without adequate support. Working in hazardous environments with minimal protective measures or backup can also cause physical and psychological stress. This combination of challenges can demoralize officials and lead them to seek financial compensation through illegitimate means, such as bribes or favoritism. Moreover, lack of recognition, promotion delays and inadequate training add to the problem, as officials feel undervalued despite high-risk responsibilities. In such an environment, corruption may appear to be a practical, albeit unethical, way of increasing income and managing individual pressures while handling the demanding realities of police work.
6. Weak internal surveillance – Internal surveillance mechanisms within the Indian police force are often too weak to effectively curb corruption. Internal vigilance units, which are in principle responsible for monitoring the behaviour of officials and investigating misconduct, are often understaffed and under-resourced. This means that even when a complaint is filed, the investigation is delayed or never completed properly. Furthermore, these units are sometimes under the influence of senior officials who may have personal or political interests, resulting in biased results that patronize corrupt officials. The lack of independence in surveillance allows unethical practices to continue unabated, as authorities feel the risk of accountability is minimal. Without strong internal oversight, corruption becomes systemic rather than sporadic, as new recruits quickly learn that unethical conduct can be committed without fear of consequences. As a result, weak surveillance undermines both internal discipline and public confidence in the police force.
7. Judicial Delay – A major factor contributing to police corruption in India is the extremely slow pace of the judicial system. Court cases can drag on for years, much to the dismay of both victims and law enforcement personnel. Police officers, aware of these delays, can exploit the situation by soliciting bribes from individuals seeking faster resolution of cases or more favourable outcomes. This creates a system where justice becomes transactional rather than theoretical. Officers who manipulate the progress of cases in exchange for money or favoritism not only undermine the integrity of policing, but also foster public skepticism about law enforcement and the judiciary. Additionally, judicial delays make it difficult to hold corrupt officials accountable in a timely manner, further deepening unethical behavior. Over time, these delays lead to a vicious cycle in which corruption exploits the inefficiency of the legal system, making bribery a normal part of the police system.
8. Political appointments of officers – Political appointments and transfers of police officers based on loyalty rather than merit are a major cause of corruption. Officials often realize that career advancement depends more on pleasing political leaders than on professional performance or ethical conduct. This encourages them to pursue corrupt political agendas, and gives priority to the interests of politicians over the rule of law. Such practices demoralize honest officers, who can be ignored for promotion despite exemplary service, while those who are willing to compromise their morals quickly achieve promotion. Furthermore, fear of the negative consequences of disobedience, such as arbitrary transfers or denial of promotions, forces officials to participate in or turn their backs on corrupt practices. Over time, this arrangement fosters a culture in which moral policing is seen as secondary to political allegiance, encapsulating corruption in the structural fabric of the police force.
9. Impact of criminal networks – Organized criminal networks have a significant impact on parts of the police in India, leading to corruption. Criminal groups often bribe or threaten officials to ensure that their operations remain uninterrupted. This may include protection from arrests, notification of raids, or even falsification of official reports. Officials, especially those paid low or working in high-risk sectors, may consider it appropriate to cooperate with criminals in exchange for financial benefits or personal security. This dynamic not only encourages criminals, but also undermines the credibility of law enforcement institutions, as authorities may prioritize their own gains over public safety. The impact of organized crime creates an environment in which corruption is both profitable and inevitable. This increases widespread collusion and reduces public confidence in policing.
10. Weak punitive measures – One of the main reasons for the persistence of corruption in the Indian Police is the weak punitive measures against unethical behaviour. Even when officials are found guilty of bribery, abuse of power or other corrupt acts, penalties are often minimal, applied inconsistently, or delayed. In some cases, political influence or personal relationships may prevent punishment altogether. This absence of reliable results reduces the deterrent effect of anti-corruption regulations and encourages officials to engage in illegal activities. Without stringent enforcement of penalties, corruption becomes a well-planned risk rather than a moral failure. Additionally, weak punitive measures send a message to the public that police are above accountability, further undermining trust and cooperation. Strengthening disciplinary action is necessary to signal that unethical behavior will not be tolerated, thereby creating a culture of honesty and professionalism.
11. Lack of transparency in investigation – Investigation processes in India are often unclear, creating opportunities for corruption among police officers. Citizens who lodge complaints cannot receive timely updates, and details of ongoing cases are often hidden or difficult to access. This ambiguity gives officials the opportunity to manipulate facts, hide mistakes, or deliberately delay progress to get bribes or favoritism. Without transparency, both the public and the monitoring body cannot effectively monitor the conduct of the police, thereby reducing accountability. Furthermore, the lack of clarity about investigative procedures promotes the perception that justice can be affected by money or relations. Officials operating in such an environment may justify unethical behaviour by assuming that their actions are unlikely to be investigated. In short, the absence of transparent procedures allows corruption to flourish and undermines both the legitimacy of law enforcement and public confidence in the justice system.
12. Cultural acceptance of corruption – In many regions of India, corruption has become culturally common, creating an environment where bribery and favoritism are considered common aspects of everyday life. This social acceptance reduces the moral pressure on police officers to resist unethical behavior. When officials see their coworkers regularly taking bribes, behaving in a privileged manner, or engaging in illegal activities without consequence, they are also more likely to adopt similar practices. Over time, this cultural normalization poses a systemic problem in which corruption becomes embedded in the very structure of the policing system, and not reduced to mere sporadic incidents. Citizens also become accustomed to paying bribes or favors to access justice or basic services, further strengthening the cycle. Ultimately, cultural acceptance of corruption undermines professional ethics, undermines public trust, and allows immoral practices to continue for many generations of police officers.
13. Misuse of transfer system – In India, the police transfer system is often misused for political or personal purposes, opening up a major avenue for corruption. Officers can often be transferred as a reward for loyalty to certain individuals, or as punishment for resisting immoral demands. This system can put pressure on officials to earn maximum illegal income in a short period of time before being sent to any other post. The uncertainty and instability associated with frequent transfers often reduce long-term accountability, as authorities prefer immediate financial or political gains to moral oversight. Furthermore, transfer arrangements may discourage officials from taking strong action against criminals or corrupt accomplices, as doing so may be contrary to the interests of those controlling postings. Over time, such manipulation fosters a culture where corruption becomes commonplace, where officials strategically plan bribe collection, favoritism, or other unethical actions based on the time of their posting.
14. Political pressure to benefit certain businesses – Police officers in India are often pressured to act in favor of specific business ventures, often in exchange for bribes or political support. This may include protecting businesses from inspections, ignoring violations, giving prior notice of raids, or interfering in legal disputes. Officials who follow these pressures may receive financial benefits, promotions, or political benefits, while those who refuse face punitive measures such as relocation, demotion, or harassment. This political-business nexus undermines impartial law enforcement and allows corrupt practices to flourish unabated. Citizens often lose confidence in the police, assuming that justice is served only by those who can give money or exert influence. The expectation that authorities will prioritize political or business interests over moral duty creates an environment where corruption becomes systemic, and honest policing becomes both risky and professionally disadvantageous.
15. Lack of resources – Limited resources, including inadequate manpower, outdated equipment and inadequate technology, contribute significantly to police corruption in India. Officials often face heavy workloads without the necessary assistance to perform their duties efficiently. The lack of vehicles, forensic equipment, communication systems or checking equipment may lead authorities to find alternative ways to deal with their responsibilities, sometimes through unethical means. For example, asking for bribes or benefiting an individual in exchange for prompt services can be seen as a way of compensating for budgetary deficiencies. Lack of resources also increases tensions and disincentives among officials, reducing commitment to ethical standards. When officials are unable to perform their duties effectively due to systemic deficiencies, corruption may appear to be a practical, albeit illegal, solution to managing both workloads and personal financial needs, further entrenching unethical practices in the system. Become deep.
16. Weak ethical training – Ethical education and anti-corruption training in Indian police academies is often inadequate or weak. While procedural knowledge and operating skills are preferred, the principles of ethics, integrity and leadership are often disregarded. Officials are often not trained to deal with ethical dilemmas, resist political or criminal pressure, or understand the long-term social impact of corruption. Without a strong foundation of ethics, young recruits can adapt to the behavior of their superiors, and learn that bribery, favoritism, or selective law enforcement is acceptable. Weak moral training fosters a culture in which officials are unwilling to uphold justice in challenging circumstances. Promoting ethical instruction, guidance and value-based training can create professional responsibility and reduce the potential for corruption, creating a police force that prioritizes integrity over facilitatism or personal gain.
17. Nepotism – Nepotism is a widespread factor that promotes corruption in the Indian police system. Promotions and appointments are often influenced by family ties, political connections, or personal relationships rather than merit or performance. Officials are aware that progress depends more on bias than merit, so they may adopt corrupt practices to favor influential people. Nepotism demoralizes honest officers and promotes dependence on unethical behavior to achieve career advancement. Moreover, when officials are promoted on the basis of relations, they may prefer the interests of those supportive of their advancement, rather than serving the public equally. This fuels systemic corruption, as officials repeat the same methods of favoritism and bias in which they benefited, undermining competency, accountability, and the overall professionalism of law enforcement.
18. Fear of retaliation – Honest police officers often face threats from criminals, influential persons or politically connected people, which leads to setbacks in anti-corruption efforts. Retaliation can take many forms, including physical harm, false legal charges, harassment, or threats to family members. Such threats create an environment hostile to moral policing, as officers may feel vulnerable to challenging corrupt practices or conducting thorough investigations of criminal activities. Fear of retaliation leads officials to follow immoral demands, avoid confrontation, or take bribes to maintain personal safety. Over time, this environment gives rise to a culture of complicity, as even well-intentioned officials understand the personal risks of resisting corruption. Ensuring protective measures, legal safeguards and institutional support are essential to empowering honest officials and reducing fear-generated compliance with corrupt practices.
19. Conflicts of interest – Police officers sometimes hold commercial interests or maintain personal relations with entities whose task of regulating has been entrusted to them, creating conflicts of interest that fuel corruption. For example, an official overseeing licensing, trade, or law enforcement in an area where he or she has a financial stake may rig investigations, condone violations, or provide exclusive benefits for private gain. Such confrontations reduce impartiality and compromise the credibility of law enforcement, as authorities prefer self-interest over public duty. Even unintentionally, these confrontations can create opportunities for bribery, favoritism, and selective law enforcement. Resolution of conflicts of interest through strict regulations, mandatory disclosure and monitoring is essential to reduce corruption, ensure impartiality and maintain public confidence in police institutions.
20. Public tolerance towards bribes – Corruption is aggravated not only by police misconduct, but also by the willingness of citizens to pay bribes. Many people prefer to provide money or favors to speed up services, avoid penalties, or achieve favorable results. This creates a demand-led cycle, where officials expect remuneration for discharging duties that they have a legal obligation to perform. Public tolerance normalizes bribery as a regular part of accessing justice or government services, reducing social pressure to hold officials accountable. Over time, this mutual collusion between citizens and officials further strengthens systemic corruption, making it a self-perpetuating problem. Reducing corruption requires both institutional reforms and public awareness campaigns that discourage bribery and emphasize legal avenues for accountability.
21. Weak media scrutiny – In many areas of India, local media plays a limited role in monitoring and reporting police activities. Due to the absence of investigative journalism, political influence, or fear of reprisals, many cases of misconduct or corruption go unreported. This lack of public scrutiny significantly reduces the potential risk of officials engaging in unethical behavior. When unlawful acts such as bribery, favouritism or abuse of power remain hidden from the public eye, officials may be encouraged to continue corrupt practices without fear of damage to their reputation or accountability. Furthermore, weak media monitoring reduces the pressure on higher officials to take action against corrupt officials. Over time, this environment fosters a culture of impunity, where immoral behavior returns to normal. Strong, independent media scrutiny is necessary to expose corruption, inform the public, and encourage honest policing, to ensure that misconduct does not remain invisible.
22. Poor Recruitment Check – In the recruitment process in Indian Police, sometimes the moral character, honesty and moral judgment of the candidates is not effectively assessed. Standard procedures often remain focused on physical fitness, academic aptitude and procedural knowledge itself, neglecting in-depth evaluation of values, honesty and sensitivity to corruption. As a result, candidates with questionable ethical standards may enter the police force, increasing the likelihood of future misconduct. Poor recruitment checks also demoralize honest officers who recruit with high ideals, but see their colleagues indulging in bribery, favoritism or other illegal activities. Without rigorous psychological assessments, background checks and ethical assessments, recruitment becomes a weak link in the chain of accountability. Strengthening recruitment processes with an emphasis on honesty, ethical reasoning and anti-corruption approaches can reduce the entry of ethically compromised individuals and help create a more professional, law-abiding police force.
23. Overlapping Jurisdictions – Overlapping jurisdictions between different police units in India create confusion about authority and responsibility. When several departments assert authority over a particular area or matter, this gives officials the opportunity to exploit this ambiguity for private gain. Citizens or businesses seeking solutions may have to contend with multiple layers of bureaucracy, leading to a situation where authorities may demand bribes to speed up procedures or resolve disputes. Criminals, aware of this confusion, may exploit the overlap of jurisdiction to circumvent enforcement. The absence of clear boundaries undermines accountability, as it becomes difficult to determine which official is responsible for misconduct. Overlap of jurisdiction not only increases corruption but also reduces efficiency, as resources are wasted and moral officers struggle to perform duties effectively. A clear demarcation of responsibilities and coordination between departments is essential to reduce opportunities for exploitation and bribery.
24. Lack of technical surveillance – Limited implementation of digital surveillance systems, body-worn cameras and centralized databases in many Indian police units promotes corruption. In the absence of technical monitoring, officials may manipulate records, conceal misconduct, or delay action without detection. Paper-based reporting, minimal monitoring and outdated IT infrastructure make it easier to tamper with evidence, falsify reports, or selectively enforce legislation. This lack of transparency reduces the possibility of accountability, giving officials the courage to commit bribery, favoritism or abuse of authority. Modern technology, including CCTV surveillance, biometric tracking, digital filing and real-time reporting, can significantly reduce opportunities for manipulation and increase confidence in law enforcement. Without technical oversight, the police remain vulnerable to corruption, both internal and external, and civilians are left without credible protection and equitable justice.
25. Social Inequality – Social and economic inequalities in India provide an environment that police officers can exploit for corrupt purposes. Marginalized groups, including the poor, women, minority and rural populations, often have limited access to legal resources, awareness or influence. Officials can exploit these weaknesses by demanding bribes, threatening legal action or providing services with delay, knowing that marginalized people have fewer options for help. This systemic exploitation not only perpetuates injustice, but also strengthens social inequality, as the underprivileged are forced to pay for rights or services that should be readily available to them. Corruption rooted in social inequality undermines public trust and creates a two-tier system of justice, where the wealthy or high-level can escape persecution while the weak are forced into immoral transactions. Removing social inequality and ensuring legal aid for marginalized groups is of paramount importance to reducing corruption.
26. Targeting pressure – Police officers in India are often pressured by higher authorities to meet specific performance targets, such as the number of arrests, convictions or cases registered. This goal-based approach can lead to unethical practices, including falsifying crime statistics, ignoring actual crimes, or taking bribes to show compliance with numerical expectations. Authorities may prefer meeting these standards to applying the law correctly, and may focus on appearances rather than actual results. The pressure to achieve goals not only fuels corruption, but also distorts law enforcement priorities, as officials manipulate numbers or actions to satisfy superiors rather than uphold justice. Over time, goal-based corruption can undermine public confidence, as civilians push police to make personal or institutional gains rather than maintain security and impartiality. A shift towards quality-based assessment, transparency and accountability is necessary to reduce such corruption-induced pressures.
27. Corruption in promotion – Promotion practices in the Indian police force often involve economic influence, favoritism or political lobbying, providing direct incentives for officers to conduct corrupt practices. When officials feel that career advancement can be “bought” or achieved through unethical compliance, they may adopt favoritism, favoritism, or partisan law enforcement as a strategy to get their favor. Honest executives without contact or financial means may have difficulty making progress, further strengthening a system where unethical practices are rewarded. Corruption in promotion undermines meritocracy and undermines professional standards, as competence and honesty become secondary to influence and economic transactions. This practice also demoralizes officials who wish to maintain ethical conduct, and ultimately promotes a culture where corruption becomes commonplace and essential to career success. Improving promotion systems to emphasize transparency, competency and accountability is critical to reducing institutional corruption.
28. Ineffective Civilian Monitoring – Civilian monitoring bodies are designed to ensure accountability within the police force, but in India, they are often weak and ineffective. Many of these bodies lack political influence or independence from senior police officers, limiting their ability to conduct impartial investigations into misconduct. Even when a complaint is filed, the investigation is delayed, undermined, or closed without any meaningful action. Lack of vigorous, autonomous citizen oversight creates a system where corrupt officials can operate with minimal fear of consequences. Citizens, aware of these limitations, may feel discouraged from reporting wrongdoing, further strengthening impunity. It is important to strengthen citizen surveillance with appropriate legal authority, adequate resources and protected freedoms to monitor police behavior, curb corruption and build public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
29. Partisan policing – Partisan policing occurs when officers act in favor of ruling political parties or influential political groups, compromising the impartiality expected of law enforcement. Officials can often selectively enforce laws, protect party-affiliated people, or harass political opponents in exchange for promotions, protections, or other benefits. This undermines the core principles of justice and fairness, and creates the impression that the police are not public servants, but weapons of political power. Partisan policing also fosters an environment in which corruption thrives, as authorities prioritize political allegiance over moral standards or legal obligations. Citizens lose faith in the impartiality of the police, and criminals associated with political institutions take advantage of this bias. In the long run, such practices damage institutional credibility, normalize unethical behaviour, and perpetuate a system where law enforcement is subject to politicization rather than doctrines.
30. Lack of whistleblower protection – Corruption persists due to inadequate protection for whistleblowers, both within the police force and the general public. Officials or citizens exposed to bribery, abuse of power or misconduct often face reprisals in the form of transfers, demotions, harassment or threats to personal safety. This discourages reporting of unethical practices, as potential whistleblowers assess individual risks against the benefits of disclosure. A culture of fear ensures that corrupt practices remain hidden and unchallenged, allowing authorities to operate free from punishment. Effective legal safeguards, anonymous reporting mechanisms and protective measures are necessary to encourage reporting of corruption, prevent unethical behaviour and promote a culture of accountability and transparency within the police system.
31. Police-Mafia nexus – In some regions of India, long-term relationships between police officers and organized crime groups promote mutual benefit, thereby promoting corruption. Criminal networks often bribe officials for security, prior notification of raids, or falsification of investigations. In return, authorities may receive financial incentives, political support, or influence over local affairs. This symbiotic relationship undermines law enforcement, allowing criminals to act unafraid and encouraging unethical behavior within the police. Over time, this alliance creates a culture where illegal alliances become common and public safety is compromised. Citizens lose confidence in the justice system, because they know that criminals can escape accountability with the connivance of the police. Tackling this problem requires close monitoring, independent investigation and strict legal action against both corrupt officials and criminal entities.
32. Inadequate training in anti-corruption laws – Many police officers in India lack adequate awareness and training about laws criminalizing bribery, extortion, abuse of power and other forms of corruption. Police academies and ongoing professional development programs often emphasize operations and procedural skills, neglecting legal literacy and moral education. This lack of knowledge may lead to unintentional violations or to rationalization of corrupt practices as acceptable. Without understanding the full legal consequences of bribery and abuse, officials may underestimate the risks involved or exploit loopholes to their advantage. Extensive training in anti-corruption legislation, ethical decision-making and transparency measures, is crucial to equipping officials with the tools they need to legally perform their duties and resist the pressures to engage in unethical behaviour.
33. Complex complaints procedures – Citizens wishing to report police abuses often face bureaucratic hurdles, making the process slow, confusing or frightening. Multiple layers of paperwork, unclear procedures and the need to go through complex administrative means prevent many people from filing complaints. Corrupt officials take advantage of these complex processes, knowing that most citizens will withdraw their complaints for fear of disappointment, delay or retaliation. The absence of an efficient, transparent and accessible complaints system strengthens impunity, allowing unethical officials to continue committing misconduct without consequences. Simplifying the complaint mechanism, ensuring timely resolution and providing legal assistance to complainants are necessary steps to reduce corruption and strengthen accountability in the police system.
34. Interference with investigations – Senior officials or politically connected individuals often manipulate investigations for personal gain, political motives, or favoritism. This interference may include manipulation of evidence, delay of trial proceedings, or directing subordinates to ignore violations. When investigations are tampered with, officials lose independence and may adopt unethical practices consistent with the interests of those in power. Citizens may view the police as biased or unreliable, thereby undermining public confidence. Additionally, intervention reduces the deterrent effect of law enforcement, as offenders expect softening through influence or bribes. Maintaining the integrity of investigations requires strict guidelines, independent monitoring and the enforcement of disciplinary measures against those who manipulate procedures for personal or political gain.
35. Taking bribes from contractors – Officials responsible for purchases, tenders or contracts often ask for or take bribes from contractors in exchange for handing over government projects. This practice diverts public funds into private hands, reduces the quality of services, and creates a culture where financial gain becomes more important than professional duty. Corrupt officials can rig tender processes, overlook shoddy work, or collude with businesses to drive up costs, ultimately burdening taxpayers. Taking bribes also promotes other unethical practices, as authorities view financial gain as a legitimate reward for breaking rules. Combating this type of corruption requires a transparent procurement process, digital monitoring and strict legal action against officials and contractors involved in such schemes.
36. Excessive discretionary power – Police officers in India often have wide discretionary power in arrests, fines, investigations and enforcement of rules. Although discretionary power is necessary in some cases, irregular power creates opportunities for exploitation. Officials may demand bribes, selectively enforce laws, or manipulate the outcome of cases based on private interests. Excessive discretionary power without oversight reduces accountability and promotes systemic corruption, as citizens have little choice against arbitrary or partisan actions. It is necessary to establish clear guidelines, standard operating procedures and strong monitoring mechanisms to ensure that discretionary power is exercised in a fair, ethical and transparent manner. Limiting uncontrolled discretion helps reduce opportunities for abuse and strengthen trust in law enforcement.
37. Limited public awareness – A significant contributor to police corruption Citizens lack awareness of their legal rights, available complaint mechanisms and procedures for reporting misconduct. Many people are unaware that bribery, abuse of power or favouritism by police officers is illegal and reportable. This knowledge gap makes citizens more vulnerable to exploitation, as they may accept or even comply with unethical demands in order to quickly address their problems. Limited public awareness keeps corruption at its root, as officials take advantage of ignorance to perpetuate systemic practices of bribery and favoritism. Educating the public about rights, legal processes and anti-corruption resources is critical to empowering citizens, holding officials accountable and creating a participatory culture of accountability.
38. Weak anti-corruption institutions – Institutions created to monitor and regulate police behaviour, such as anti-corruption bureaux and vigilance commissions, are often subject to lack of resources, staff shortages or political influence. These weaknesses severely limit their ability to objectively investigate misconduct or take timely action against corrupt officials. Many such institutions rely on funds and appointments controlled by political authorities, affecting independence and effectiveness. As a result, the authorities feel that there is little risk of corrupt activities being caught or punished. Weak anti-corruption institutions contribute to systemic impunity, promote unethical behaviour and undermine public confidence in law enforcement. Strengthening these institutions through legal safeguards, appropriate resources and operational autonomy is essential to enforce accountability and promote a culture of integrity within the police force.
39. Cultural emphasis on seniority – In Indian police culture, there is often a strong emphasis on following senior officers without any questions. Junior officials, aware of moral lapses or corruption, may follow the behaviour of their superiors rather than act independently or observe professional ethics. This respect is rooted in hierarchical traditions that prioritize obedience over critical judgment or moral responsibility. Over time, this cultural emphasis encourages the normalization of immoral practices, as juniors imitate corrupt superiors and believe that such behavior is normative. This cycle perpetuates corruption in generations of officials, as moral conduct is influenced by the need to maintain grace with high-ranking officials. It is important to encourage accountability and ethical decision-making at all levels to break this hierarchical consolidation of corruption.
40. Economic disparities between officers – The pay gap between junior and senior police officers creates economic pressures that fuel corruption. Junior officers, who often receive low salaries relative to the responsibilities and risks of their duties, may feel obliged to increase income through bribes or illegal favours. Economic disparities are exacerbated by irregular promotions, delayed salary increases and unequal distribution of allowances. Such inequalities create discontent and make financial gain an attractive solution to personal and family needs. Authorities can rationalize unethical behavior as a practical solution to systemic inequities, leading to a cycle of corruption within the police force. Reducing the economic incentive of bribery and strengthening ethical policing requires eliminating income disparities and ensuring fair, timely compensation.
41. Fear of losing job security – Many police officers follow illegal orders or indulge in corruption for fear of losing job security. Threats of arbitrary transfer, demotion, suspension or harassment by senior officials or politically connected individuals create an environment where officials prioritize self-defence over ethical conduct. This fear hinders independent decision-making, discourages reporting misconduct, and puts pressure on officials to engage in corrupt practices, even if they personally disagree with it. Over time, a system based on pressure and fear normalizes unethical behavior, as authorities adopt survival strategies rather than assume legal and moral responsibilities. Ensuring secure employment, clear accountability structures and the protection of ethical conduct is essential to reducing fear-generated compliance with corruption.
42. Poor community policing – Lack of meaningful engagement between police and local communities undermines transparency and accountability. Officers who live in isolation from citizens are less likely to face investigation for misconduct, while communities who are unaware of their rights or unable to monitor police actions may become passive spectators of corruption. Poor community policing reduces trust, reduces opportunities for response, and allows unethical behavior to continue unabated. Without the active participation of citizens, police accountability is reduced to internal mechanisms, which may themselves be ineffective or biased. Strengthening community policing through regular contact, complaint resolution and collaborative protection initiatives increases transparency, prevents misconduct, and builds mutual trust between law enforcement and the public.
43. Influence of local bullies – In many parts of India, police officers face pressure from local power brokers, including politicians, landowners, industrialists or influential businessmen. These may force local overbearing authorities into compliance, demand favors, or offer financial inducements for protection or selective enforcement of laws. Officials often feel obliged to comply for fear of retaliation, career repercussions, or threats to personal safety. Such an effect undermines fair policing, whereby criminals or powerful institutions can operate free of punishment, while moral authorities struggle to act independently. Addressing this problem requires reducing external interference, establishing protective measures for authorities, and creating an independent accountability framework to protect law enforcement from undue influence by local power structures.
44. Weak business ethics enforcement – Although police forces often have codes of conduct, rules, and ethical guidelines, enforcement is often lax or inconsistent. Officials may be aware of the rules against bribery, favouritism or abuse of authority, but feel that violations attract no penalties. Failure to enforce business ethics reduces the moral obligation to remain honest, normalizing corruption. Weak enforcement also indicates that unethical behaviour is tolerated or even benefits, particularly when senior officials engage in or condone misconduct. Strengthening ethical enforcement requires close monitoring, disciplinary action and continued education to ensure that rules are respected and that ethical policing is institutionalized rather than optional.
45. Legacy of Historical Corruption – The problem of corruption in Indian policing has been further strengthened by age-old historical bureaucratic practices and colonial-era policing models. During the colonial period, policing was primarily designed to maintain authority and control, often through coercion, favoritism, and financial exploitation. Even after independence, these structural and cultural heritages remained and absorbed practices such as bribery, selective law enforcement, and hierarchical patronage into the system. Generation after generation, these norms became deeply ingrained in organizational culture and began to influence training, behaviour and public expectations. Officials have grown up in a system where corruption is considered normal and is considered part of the institutional framework. Breaking this legacy requires systemic reforms, cultural change, and continued enforcement of accountability and ethical standards to replace entrenched practices with transparent, citizen-centric policing.
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…