The job of the police force in any country is to maintain law and order, protect common citizens and show the face of the government in everyday life. Ideally, the police should implement a fair justice system, so that every citizen, regardless of his social status, wealth or background, is entitled to equal rights and protection under the law. But in India, people’s thinking and reality about police is very different. For decades, the Indian Police has been known not only for incompetence but also for large-scale corruption. Bribery, extortion, custodial torture, political interference and lack of accountability have become part of this institution. This perception about this system of corruption is not only prevalent among Indian citizens, but when compared with police departments of other countries, it is also believed across the world.
Corruption in the Indian police department is often considered more serious, entrenched and common than police systems in many other countries of the world. This image has not come suddenly, but is the result of a complex historical legacy, socio-political climate and institutional decline. To understand why India’s police are considered more corrupt, we need to compare the historical background of the police force, the role of politics, the socio-economic conditions that promote corruption, lack of accountability and countries where the police are more transparent. And is accountable to the public.
In this detailed analysis, we will explore the roots of Indian police corruption, study how it became institutionalized and why it is more widespread in India than in other countries of the world. We will also discuss the consequences of such corruption on governance, democracy and the everyday lives of citizens.
The beginnings of policing in India are directly linked to the colonial period, especially with the Police Act enacted in 1861 after the 1857 revolution. The British did not create the police to serve the citizens or protect their rights. Rather, it was made a dominating instrument – a way to control, monitor and intimidate the Indian public. The revolution had shaken British rule, and the Aupanivesic administration immediately needed a force that could prevent any future rebellion. Therefore, the police were created not to ensure the safety of the people or justice, but to maintain imperialist power.
Unlike democratic society, where the police are considered protectors of law, order and the well-being of the community, colonial Indian police were trained and empowered as agents of repression. His duty was not to listen to the grievances of the people, but to get them to obey, gather information about the protests, crush the demonstrations and protect the interests of the British Raj. The common people were not seen as citizens, but as subjects. The thinking behind creating the police was suspicion, control and the perception that Indians were not entitled to security, but a potential threat.
This colonial legacy had a profound and lasting impact on policing in India. When India gained independence in 1947, it was expected that the institutions created to serve foreign rulers would be completely restructured. But there was no major improvement in the policing system. The newly formed Indian state adopted much of the existing administrative structure including laws, organizational structure and procedures created during British rule. The Police Act of 1861 did not change – it continued to govern policing throughout the country, and remains in force in many states today.
As a result, the attitude of the police force did not change towards democratic values like accountability, transparency, fairness or public service. Rather, the old colonial culture – which was authoritarian and hierarchical – persisted in practice. The police still acted as a force not among the people, but above them. Due to lack of change in this institution, methods like fear, coercion, bribery and political misuse continued to be practiced.
On the contrary, many other countries liberated from colonial rule took meaningful steps to modernize and democratize their police systems. Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, implemented reforms that focused on efficiency, discipline and public confidence. In South Africa, after apartheid ended, major changes were made to replace the oppressive policing system with a model that was based on community service, equality before the law and accountability. These countries invested in reorganizing their police, redefining the role of law enforcement and updating the legal framework to reflect democratic principles.
But such large-scale reforms did not take place in India. Colonial thinking became common in the police and was inherited across generations of officers. Over time, this legacy became associated with post-independence political truths such as protectionism, regional power struggles, and weak institutional oversight. The police continued to be seen as an intimidating force rather than a helper in the eyes of the public. Because the system was never fundamentally changed, corruption had a chance to flourish and persist. The command chain, lack of accountability to the public, outdated legislation and centralized control allowed wrongdoing to flourish.
This historical continuity is the main reason why corruption in the Indian police system is more deeply entrenched than in many other countries. If an institution is not originally created to serve the people but to govern them, and if that institution does not change structurally for decades, things like bribery, vandalism, non-response and political interference naturally begin to flourish. The lack of serious reforms also means that ways to prevent wrongdoing remain weak or useless. Surveillance entities often do not have independence, internal culture does not promote accountability and citizens still hesitate to challenge police wrongdoing out of fear or mistrust.
Therefore, the problems seen in the police today – corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency and low public trust – are no different from the novel roots of the system. Unless infrastructure is replaced by a modern, people-centred framework emphasizing service, ethics, professionalism and democratic accountability, the shadow of the past will continue to affect the present. Not being able to adapt the police to the needs and rights of citizens after independence is not just a lost chance – it is the main reason why the system still struggles to serve as a force for justice rather than control.
There are deep structural problems in the Indian police system, due to which corruption has become common, rather it has become almost inevitable. These weaknesses are not temporary or isolated, but they are included in the way the institution works. In many developed countries where the police is seen as a professional, service-oriented and well-supported institution, the Indian police are still facing problems like lack of manpower, outdated methods, poor infrastructure, low training and lack of accountability. Is struggling. All these factors combine to create an environment, where corruption becomes the way of existence rather than an exception.
One of the biggest problems is the huge manpower shortage in the police force. India has one of the lowest police-population ratios in the world. The United Nations recommends about 222 policemen for 100,000 people. Many European and East Asian countries meet or even exceed this standard. In contrast, India’s effective police capacity is much lower than the recommended standard after taking into account vacant posts, non-operational staff and administrative duties. This reduction puts a lot of pressure on the existing authorities, who have to do a lot of work without any assistance.
When an officer is expected to do things that two or three people do in other countries, this pressure leads to negligence, corruption and abuse of authority. Lack of manpower also means that officials are often tempted to prioritize cases based on bribery, influence or political pressure. Tasks that should be normal – such as filing a First Information Report (FIR), conducting investigations, providing security or helping with legal processes – also become opportunities to take bribes.
Citizens seeking help in emergencies are often at the mercy of officials who openly or secretly ask for money to provide their basic services. In cases such as crime, harassment, land disputes or domestic violence, the emotional distress of the victims is taken advantage of. Many officers view service as a transaction rather than a duty. Over time, corruption becomes common and people start believing that nothing can happen legally without paying money to the police.
In stark contrast, many countries that see accountability as strong in a democracy invest heavily in their police forces. For example, European countries are better staffed by the police and provide frequent training to officers in a range of areas such as law, human rights, ethics, behavioural psychology, community engagement and the use of modern forensic technology. Officers are taught to think of themselves as helpers of justice and protect the common people, rather than as keepers of power. They are reminded that their power is only to ensure safety and enforce the law and not to dominate the public.
Modern policing also depends on technology and scientific investigation. Countries that prioritize improving law and order give authorities digital databases, surveillance equipment, forensic labs and efficient communication systems. But in India, many police stations still rely on manual paper work, old equipment and old testing methods. Lack of training in cybercrime, forensic science or evidence-based investigation often forces officers to bully, take shortcuts or act on their own, leading to corruption.
Another major reason for the persistence of corruption is the lack of strong, independent oversight. In most democratic systems, power is controlled through surveillance and accountability. But in India, accountability methods in the police are either weak, not followed properly or remain under political pressure. Internal discipline procedures seek to protect officials rather than punish wrongdoers. Often the transfer of an officer is the biggest punishment, and that too is influenced by political bargaining.
External monitoring institutions, even where they are, are very limited. There are no national-level independent police complaints authorities with actual investigative power and legal action to take. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia, citizen-led independent commissions can call in the official, investigate wrongdoing and recommend prosecution. In India, complaints of vandalism, bribery, custodial death or dereliction of duty have very few serious consequences, unless the case goes viral in the media or reaches court due to heavy public pressure.
This lack of institutional accountability leads to corrupt behaviour. Officials believe that even if they are caught extorting money, misusing power or protecting criminals, nothing serious will happen to them. This lack of fear leads to continued corrupt practices. Junior officers imitate their seniors, not by their own understanding, but because the system promotes silence, obedience, and complicity rather than honesty and improvement.
When citizens lose trust in law enforcement, the entire justice system is undermined. People are hesitant to report crimes, criminals take advantage of police connections, and bribery becomes common. Instead of being a justice-keeping body, the police start acting like a private company collecting illegal fees. This cycle of corruption benefits the people inside the system, while harming the common people who have neither influence nor money.
The lack of understaffing, outdated methods, poor training, no-holds-barred arbitrariness and independent monitoring make corruption not only possible but also part of the system. Without major reforms in recruitment, training, infrastructure, technology, public accountability and institutional independence, the Indian police force will continue to struggle and corruption will remain an everyday reality rather than an exception.
Political interference is one of the main reasons why the Indian police is considered more corrupt than the police of many countries of the world. This interference affects the functioning of the police. Instead of an independent institution to maintain law and order, the Indian Police often operates under the political system. This relationship has evolved over the decades, creating a system in which political leaders consider the police to be a means of advancing their private, electoral and party interests, rather than a professional bound by law.
Politicians often use the police to intimidate or silence opponents. Law enforcement is abused to harass political opponents, disrupt peaceful protests, file false criminal cases, and influence public opinion. During elections, police action or inaction can be controlled for the benefit of certain parties – whether it is taking action against a particular group, suppressing the voices of minorities or ignoring the illegal activities of politically connected people. Such biased use of police reduces public trust and makes the police a means of control rather than justice.
The most obvious sign of political control over the police is the method of transfer and posting. In many democratic countries, police are appointed on the basis of seniority, experience, training and qualifications. But in India, posting often depends on political loyalty rather than professional ability. Officials deemed “ally” or “disciplined” towards the interests of the ruling party are given important, influential or economically beneficial positions. On the other hand, those who do not accede to political demands are suddenly transferred to distant or less important places, sometimes several times in the same year.
This system of political patronage has a bad effect. Officials soon understand that career advancement, security, and access to resources depend not on honesty or public service, but on building relationships with influential leaders. The cost of getting the posting you want can be both political and economic. Once an official has acquired the position on the basis of relations rather than merit, it becomes his priority to recover the illegal costs of that position. Due to this, officials get involved in activities like bribery, extortion, favoritism and protection. The political class, knowing that the official is grateful for giving them their position, expects loyalty in return – whether that means rescuing criminals, condoning illegal activities or targeting opponents.
In contrast, countries with strong institutional security have developed systems that reduce political abuse. For example, in the US, the police force is decentralized across states, counties, and municipalities. They operate in surveillance at multiple levels, including courts, state-level commissions, federal agencies, and independent watchdog entities. While wrongdoing still occurs, this structure facilitates intervention when corruption or political manipulation is feared. In serious cases, officials may be sued, investigated departmentally, or under federal surveillance.
Similarly, in many European democracies, officials are protected by civil service laws that prevent arbitrary transfers and protect them from political reprisals. Appointments boards, police commissions and independent ombudsman institutions ensure that governing parties cannot easily exert pressure on officials. Consequently, even when political leaders try to intervene, the institutional framework is constantly opposed to manipulation.
But in India, the relationship between politicians and the police is so deep that the public considers the entire system corrupt. Citizens often believe that justice depends not on law but on relationships. Officials trying to maintain impartiality face pressure from many directions – politicians, senior bureaucrats and local influential people. This pressure reaches daily policing, affecting how complaints are dealt with, which cases are pursued and who receives protection.
The most dangerous consequence of this complicity is that corruption becomes systemic rather than individual. When the police work for the political elite instead of protecting the public, corruption is no exception – it becomes part of the business. Bribery, favoritism and political dealings become illegal currencies in the system. Knowing this truth, ordinary citizens are often hesitant or afraid to go to the police, believing that justice cannot be achieved without influence or money.
Because checks and balances are weak and external monitoring institutions lack independence, political manipulation is not opposed. Only when a case appears in the media or there is judicial intervention does accountability follow, and even then, the results are often delayed or of little effect. This makes corruption in Indian policing seem more dangerous and institutionalized than in countries where structural security measures reduce political interference.
This mix of policing and politics in India is not just a lack of governance – it is a core problem that disturbs the entire criminal justice system. Until the independence of the police is legally secured and transfers, promotions and disciplinary action are taken out of political control, corruption will continue to flourish in the name of power.
Another major cause of police corruption in India is the widespread socio-economic environment in which the police operate. There are problems in Indian society like economic inequality, poverty, unemployment and continuously increasing inflation in urban areas. Many police officers, especially those in the lower ranks, are caught between the needs of their families and low salaries. While senior officers get better salaries and facilities, constables, head constables and sub-inspectors often work at such low salaries that even their basic needs are barely met. Many of these people have to raise large families, pay rent, afford treatment, and cope with rising education costs. This economic pressure creates a situation where the greed or pressure to take bribe becomes a kind of defensive method, rather than a moral mistake.
In many Indian states, the starting salary of entry level policemen is low and the increase is also gradual. Long working hours, lack of housing allowance, less medical facilities and less opportunities to progress in career make the situation worse. On the contrary, the risk in this profession is very high – danger to life, public pressure, political interference and constant tension. When officials feel that they do not get a fair reward for such a difficult task, corruption in their view becomes a way to compensate for the system’s neglect. Over time, this thinking becomes common, especially in departments where corruption is already common.
Minor bribes are the most common and widespread aspect of this problem. It affects millions of citizens every day and plays an important role in creating the impression that the Indian police is corrupt. Even common things like stopping in traffic can turn into money transactions. Drivers caught without the necessary papers or breaking minor rules often prefer to pay bribes to avoid lengthy process or legal action. Officials know this and take advantage of it. Similarly, when citizens go to lodge a complaint or lodge a First Information Report (FIR), they may be asked to settle the matter directly or indirectly with money. Access to justice, which should be a basic right, becomes dependent on bribes.
Even in police stations, small bribes are demanded for tasks like document verification, filing of charge sheet or speedy completion of any process. Over time, these practices create an environment where corruption is considered not shocking or unusual, but a part of everyday life. People start believing that nothing can be done through government channels without paying bribe. This thinking further strengthens this cycle, as both citizens and officials are involved in it for convenience or to run their lives. When corruption becomes common to this extent, it becomes very difficult to reform.
On the contrary, many rich and better-governed countries organize policing in a way that minimizes economic insecurity. For example, in Singapore, police officers are paid good salaries so that they can live a comfortable life without any wrongdoing. Their training emphasizes honesty and service to the public, and a strict discipline system ensures that even minor corruption cases are taken seriously. Punishments for bribery and wrongdoing are not only severe but also strictly enforced. This combination of fair wages and strict accountability greatly reduces the incentive and opportunity for corruption.
In addition, cultural thinking also plays an important role. In many developed countries, giving or taking bribes is not only illegal, but is considered wrong in the society and can lead to a strong reaction from the people. Fear of losing job, pension or reputation is a big hurdle. In India, adherence to anti-corruption laws is weak, investigations may be delayed or affected, and sentences are often minor. As a result, today, there is neither enough deterrence nor proper professional reward to promote good policing.
Another reason is that citizens, upset with bureaucratic delays, often start paying bribes to complete the process faster. Over time, this makes corruption seem like a transaction and a common practice rather than a crime or wrongdoing. When both the public and the police begin to regard bribes as a normal method of negotiation, the entire moral and legal basis of law enforcement is undermined.
Therefore, low wages, overspending, lack of institutional support, culture that tolerates bribes and weak action for indiscipline create a ground for corruption. This problem is not only due to personal greed, but it is a structural truth that forces the authorities to do wrong. Unless Indian policemen are given economic security, social respect and strong moral training – as well as severe punishment for wrongdoing – this problem will persist.
Corruption cannot be eliminated without understanding the economic condition of police officers and the thinking of the society which considers bribery as a common shortcut. Without reform of the system, the perception and reality of corruption in the Indian police will remain deep.
Another important reason that promotes police corruption in India is the weakness and incompetence of the judiciary. The job of the judiciary is to control law enforcement agencies by ensuring accountability, transparency and justice. But, the slowness and workload of Indian courts creates an environment where corruption flourishes. When cases take years or decades to be decided, the police have the power to act arbitrarily over a long period of time.
The number of cases pending in courts in India is very high. Lakhs of cases are pending in district courts, high courts and Supreme Court. Many victims and accused persons die before their case is decided. This constant delay makes justice a privilege rather than a right. As such, police officers often become brokers or ‘powerful individuals’ between the public and the judiciary. Instead of being impartial investigators who protect the law, they use their influence on the progress of the case to seek recovery.
For example, when filing a First Information Report (FIR), investigating a crime, filing a charge sheet or collecting evidence, police officers may disturb the process to create pressure. They may delay action, falsely claim no evidence or do not follow-up when they do not receive money. In the cases of poor or marginalized people, the threat of not taking action is what makes them accept. In the case of rich or influential people, the police may demand more bribes from them due to fear of going public or taking legal action.
The most common way to make a mess is to tamper with or hide evidence. If the accused is willing to pay the money, the police may deliberately weaken the case, destroy evidence or avoid arrest. On the other hand, victims seeking justice also have to ‘influence the system’ to take their grievances seriously. In cases of land disputes, business disputes, sexual harassment or fraud, police officers can decide the direction of investigation based on the amount received from both the parties.
Witness intimidation is another form of corruption caused by judicial delays. Statements of witnesses are very important in trials, but when court hearings are repeatedly postponed, witnesses become vulnerable to threats, coercion or bribes. Police officers, instead of protecting witnesses, sometimes promote such intimidation in exchange for money. They may delay making statements, refuse to give protection or ask witnesses to withdraw or change their statements.
In countries where the judiciary is fast, fair and orderly, such practices become difficult. In Germany, for example, there are strict deadlines and judicial monitoring for investigations. Police officers cannot hold cases indefinitely as prosecutors and courts closely monitor progress. Japan’s judiciary is also known for discipline, clarity of process and efficiency. There is little scope for officials to resort to delaying tactics or tampering with evidence for personal gain. When justice is done quickly, opportunities for corruption are reduced.
But in India, lack of timely trial means that the investigation never ends. This gives corrupt officials time and opportunity to take advantage of fear and despair. The longer the case goes on, the more money officials can charge, whether by promising good results, expediting paperwork, or handling the case illegally. In some cases, corrupt police officers deliberately delay to increase their bargaining power.
The problem is compounded by the lack of strong judicial oversight. Magistrates and judges are often too busy to investigate everything the police do. Bail decisions, the submission of evidence and the detention process are often completed without an in-depth investigation. This weakens accountability and corrupt officials become fearless. When a police officer knows that the court will not question irregularities in the process, he has no fear of punishment.
Moreover, indiscipline actions against corrupt police officers are very rare. Departmental investigations are slow-moving, and even if wrongdoing is proven, the punishment is often minor. It is the judicial system designed to put a stop to the wrong activities of the police that is caught up in the delay, so that many officers continue their careers without any punishment. This creates a cycle in which wrongdoing becomes common and this tradition continues across generations of police officers.
For ordinary citizens, this poor system is very difficult to deal with. Many people do not have the time, money or courage to seek justice for years. As a result, they succumb to the system and bribe the police to settle the matter without any legal action or get the government process done quickly. What should be a constitutional right becomes a transaction full of fear, fatigue and despair. The slow pace of the Indian judiciary leads to police officers abusing their authority at many levels. By threatening delay, tampering with the investigation or misusing their authority, they turn lapses in the process into a means of earning money. Unless India’s judiciary system is reformed to ensure speed, transparency and accountability, there will be no stop to police corruption and delays that deprive millions of people of access to justice will continue to fuel it.
Custodial torture and deaths in India are not just violations of human rights, but are deeply linked to corruption in the police system and the culture of unhindered power. Instead of relying on modern, evidence-based investigative techniques, many police officers in India resort to physical pressure, bullying and psychological torture to extract statements or extract information. The use of force rather than forensic science reflects the system’s shortcomings and the thinking created by colonial-era policing practices.
Scientific methods such as forensic analysis, DNA testing, digital tracking and surveillance technology are either underutilized or misused in many areas. Police training programmes often de-emphasize investigative skills based on legal and scientific methods. As a result, many authorities consider torture a fast and “effective” method, even if it is illegal and not trustworthy. Forced statements made under duress often lead to wrongful conviction, denial of justice and concealment of police wrongdoings.
Custodial violence is also an opportunity for corruption. The families of those detained, whether convicted or innocent, live in fear of what will happen in a police station, lockup or remand centre. Authorities often take advantage of this fear and ask for bribes in exchange for protection, medical care, or humane treatment. In serious cases, the authorities threaten torture or false accusations if the money is not received. Thus, corruption is not just about money, but it becomes a way of life for victims and a source of power for criminals.
People who cannot pay are often victims of more violence. Reports from human rights organizations and investigations by the media have revealed a number of cases in which detainees have been beaten, humiliated or killed. Many custodial deaths are described as “natural causes” or “suicide”, even if there is clear evidence of torture. Postmortem reports are tampered with, evidence is tampered with and investigations are prevented or suppressed.
By not being responsible people feel that they can do anything. Very few of the policemen involved in custodial deaths are prosecuted and the punishment is even less. Internal departmental investigations are often cosmetic, which do not hold officials responsible instead of protecting them. Political relations, weak surveillance and poor legal procedures allow criminals to remain in jobs with no serious consequences.
In contrast, most developed democracies have strong safeguards to prevent custodial abuse. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan and Australia apply strict rules for arrest, detention and interrogation. Suspects have the right to access legal aid, medical examinations and independent monitoring agencies. Many countries use electronic surveillance, such as CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms and detention cells, to ensure transparency.
In addition, independent monitoring agencies in these countries investigate allegations of ill-treatment in custody. For example, in the US, the Justice Department may intervene in police systemic abuse cases. In European countries, ombudsman institutions and the Human Rights Commission are empowered to demand investigations and impose penalties. Officers found guilty of torture or ill-treatment may be suspended, criminally prosecuted, dismissed from their jobs and jailed.
But in India, custodial violence is often considered “policing method” rather than crime. The anger of the general public does not arise until a matter comes into limelight through social media or news coverage. Even then, investigations can take years and justice is difficult to come by. Victims and their families not only have to deal with trauma, but also with fear of revenge and complex legal obstacles.
The continuous occurrence of custodial deaths tarnishes India’s image at the international level. Global watchdogs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have repeatedly raised concerns about torture in Indian detention facilities. Despite legal provisions such as Article 21 of the Constitution and Supreme Court guidelines against third degree methods, adherence to these is weak. India has also not ratified the UN Convention against Torture, further limiting international accountability mechanisms.
Violence in custody reflects both corruption and the deterioration of the system. It shows how abuses of power continue when ethics, surveillance and justice mechanisms fail. Police officers dependent on torture often do so in the belief that the system will protect them. When families have to pay money to keep their loved ones alive or safe in custody, it shows how much corruption has taken root.
Until strong legal reforms, independent monitoring, proper training and prompt punishment for criminals are implemented, custodial abuse will remain a black spot on India’s policing system. Compared to global standards, the Indian method is not only outdated but also dangerous – it promotes the perception that the police are not protectors of justice, but fear-mongering and arbitrary.
Comparing India with other countries, the seriousness and openness of police corruption also attracts attention because it is not limited to just wrongdoing, but it has now become a part of a system, has become commonplace and is in power. People constantly ignore it. In many developed democracies, such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Germany, the police system is based on strong principles such as accountability, transparency, citizen trust and consistent institutional reform. These countries do not consider themselves completely corruption-free, but the system they have created makes it very difficult for corrupt officials to commit corruption or work without investigation.
One major difference is independent monitoring. Countries like Britain have institutions like the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which have the authority to investigate allegations against police officers without political or departmental pressure. In Canada, civilian monitoring agencies such as the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and similar provincial entities monitor serious allegations involving officers. They have the authority to ask for evidence, interrogate officials, and recommend prosecution. In Australia, too, there are state corruption commissions or integrity boards that investigate abuses of power in the police system. These monitoring mechanisms prevent officials from taking bribes or abusing power because they know that the investigation will be buried inside.
Technology and training also play an important role in reducing corruption in developed democracies. Policemen in Canada, Britain and Australia are given body-worn cameras, dashboard cameras, petrol cars with GPS, digital records of arrests and strict custody procedures for evidence. There is a record of the action and it is difficult to tamper with it. Whatever steps the authorities take— to interrogate the suspect, take paperwork or search—, everything is recorded in a system that can be audited. This transparency reduces the possibility of extortion, bribery or false allegations.
On the contrary, reforms in India were either not implemented properly or were deliberately delayed. Even with Supreme Court decisions or expert committees recommending new monitoring mechanisms, political parties and senior bureaucracies often hinder its enforcement. Many police departments still rely on old methods with paperwork, do not have a body camera and operate under old laws inherited from colonial times. When citizens complain, often the same department that is accused of wrongdoing itself conducts “investigation”, making it difficult to get justice.
India’s situation looks bad even in developing countries, as other countries have taken active steps to deal with police corruption. Hong Kong is a great example of this. Police corruption was very common in Hong Kong in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Officials also collected protection money from businesses, gamblers and common citizens. But the government felt that internal systems were not enough, so in 1974 it created an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Unlike the Internal Police Unit, ICAC operated out of the police system and had the authority to investigate senior officers as well. It imposed strict punishment, confiscated illegal assets and conducted awareness campaigns to change people’s thinking towards corruption. Over time, this made Hong Kong’s police one of the most honest in Asia.
India has never created such a strong and independent organization to keep an eye on police corruption. Several commissions—, such as the National Police Commission, Ribeiro Committee, Padmanabhaiya Committee and the Supreme Court’s directions in the Prakash Singh case, have stressed the need for independent complaint authorities at both the state and district levels. Nevertheless, most states ignored or implemented these instructions on paper. Without external accountability, police officers continue to abuse their rights, especially when they are supported by networks with political patronage or local influence.
The second reason is the increase in corruption in India and accepting it as common. Bribery to lodge or dismiss complaints, money not to arrest or harass and protection deals from criminals, smugglers or thugs have become common in many areas. Authorities often consider these activities not as wrongdoing but as ‘extra earnings’, and citizens accustomed to mistreatment or delays often feel compelled to pay money even to get basic services. In many Western countries, suspension, firing, legal action, and public anger can result if a single case of bribery is proven. In India, such cases are often dealt with quietly or ignored, and those who raise their voice against corruption are intimidated.
Therefore, it is true that there is corruption everywhere in the world, but the seriousness, frequency and tolerance of corruption in the Indian police makes it much more serious than that in society. The lack of strong monitoring institutions, weak implementation of reforms, outdated police culture and close links between politics and law enforcement contribute to this poor situation. Countries like Hong Kong, which have once faced challenges like India, showed that meaningful change is possible. But without political will and public pressure, police corruption is deeply rooted in India and is much more serious than in many other countries.
Corruption does not happen alone in the Indian police force – it weakens the entire democratic structure of the country and changes the relationship between citizens and the state. Police is often called “face of government” because people are the first to approach them in matters of security, disputes, crime and justice. When this face becomes trustworthy or tyrannical, people no longer consider the state to be protective. They begin to fear or stay away from the institutions that are meant to serve them. The consequences of this lack of trust go far beyond individual cases of bribery or wrongdoing.
The most fundamental loss is to the governance system itself. Democracy depends on the belief that laws apply equally to all and that the State will apply them fairly. When police corruption becomes common, law and order is no longer a firm guarantee – they become a bargain thing.
Many victims are hesitant to report a crime or ask for help, knowing that they may be asked for money, favors, or political connections to file a complaint. On the other hand, criminals become fearless because they can barely escape by paying money. When enforcing the law becomes a business transaction, the entire meaning of justice is lost.
This decline is not limited to policing only; It destroys citizens’ trust in the entire state system. If the police, who are the guardians of the law, can be bought or influenced, people naturally believe that the courts, bureaucrats and politicians are equally corrupt. This weakens democratic participation. Citizens become frustrated, indifferent or angry. They stop believing that elections, policies or legal processes can make a real difference. In such an environment, democracy seems hollow – a sham rather than a functioning system.
The most dangerous consequence of police corruption is the rise of hooliganism. When people cannot trust the government machinery for justice, they sometimes start solving cases themselves. Local mobs, self-proclaimed community promoters or punk gangs emerge to give “punishment” to the criminal or resolve the dispute. At first it may seem like retribution against injustice, but over time it becomes a separate mechanism of chaos, violence and fear. The rule of law is replaced by the rule of force and the legitimacy of the State is further undermined. In some areas, extremist groups or local mafias replace the police and illegally dominate people, intimidating them into their loyalty.
The direct victims of this corrupt system are often those who are already marginalized. Poor communities become the worst victims of police exploitation. Many people are unable to pay bribes and are easily intimidated. Unless they pay, their complaints are not even heard, and in some cases, they are harassed simply because they are helpless. The threat to minority communities is even greater on the basis of religion, caste, ethnicity or region. Partisanship and discrimination along with corruption means that some communities are protected corruptly, while other communities have to face exploitation without any relief.
Women are also the biggest victims of this injustice. When they face domestic violence, harassment or sexual abuse, many women hesitate to go to the police, fearing that they will be shamed, have their complaint rejected or be asked for money. Instead of giving protection, some officials abuse their position. In such an environment, justice becomes conditional. Those who have money, social influence or political support can expect help, while others receive no protection.
This inequality has a bad effect on the society. It strengthens class privilege, promotes illegal power networks and keeps marginalized communities trapped in a cycle of fear and silence. When justice is purchased, the promise of equality before the law is broken. Children learn that relationships matter more than the truth and that the system is against the weak. This thinking destroys the democratic spirit, which is about giving equal rights and respect to every citizen.
Corruption also fills the administration with incompetence and irregularities. When police officers focus on taking bribes or protecting influential criminals, they ignore real threats. Crimes such as human trafficking, assault, theft or fraud do not stop unless someone pays money to stop them. This discriminatory action helps criminal networks that operate easily in the protection of corrupt officials to flourish. Over time, these groups break into the local economy and politics, further weakening the state.
Its democratic price is very heavy. Institutions lose their authority, citizens lose their hopes and society is divided into those who can control the system and those who fall victim to it. Corruption in police is not just a moral mistake, it is a serious threat to democracy, equality and law and order. Unless it is addressed by serious reform, accountability methods and political will, it will continue to transform rights into privileges and make justice just a commodity for the strong.
For several decades, the issue of police reform in India has been repeatedly raised through committees, commissions and judicial intervention. Nevertheless, there has been little change in practice. The most important milestone in this discussion was the Supreme Court ruling in the Prakash Singh case in 2006. In that judgment, the Court issued certain binding directions aimed at reducing political interference, ensuring accountability and professionalizing the police force. These instructions were not vague suggestions—they were concrete, applicable steps towards reform.
The Supreme Court demanded the creation of independent police complaints authorities at the state and district levels. The purpose of these institutions was to investigate allegations of police wrongdoing, such as custodial deaths, vandalism, extortion and abuse of authority. By making these institutions independent of police and political influence, the motive was for citizens to have a fair way of getting justice when they were wronged by law enforcement. Another important directive was to introduce fixed tenure for officers, especially for posts like Director General of Police (DGP), Superintendent of Police (SP) and SHO. The aim was to prevent repeated transfers on grounds of political expediency and to protect officials who tried to act impartially.
The court also recommended separation of investigation and law and order functions, so that officers can gain expertise and work better without any compromise. Furthermore, it suggested creating a State Security Commission to protect police functioning from political abuse. These commissions should have had independent members and would have acted as watchdog directing police policy and functioning.
Although these instructions came from the highest constitutional body, their implementation remained slow, incomplete or deliberately weak in most states. In many States, alleged police complaints authorities were established on paper, without any real autonomy, funding or investigative power. Instead of appointing retired judges, legal experts or independent citizens, governments often appointed existing or retired bureaucrats to entities that were loyal to the governing administration. As a result, the feeling of freedom was lost.
The rule of fixed tenure is also often broken. Transfer of officers based on political pressure and electoral calculations is still common. Many postings are reportedly bought, sold or gifted on a close basis from powerful leaders. States have either made weak laws that avoid court directions or are reluctant to implement them. In some cases, governments argued that “police” is a subject of the state list of constitutions, so the Court cannot force them to implement similar reforms. This constitutional pretext hides a deep truth: political people do not want to lose their control over the police.
The failure of the reform is not due to lack of knowledge or unavailability of expert opinion. These are the main problems many committees have pointed out over the decades. From the National Police Commission of the 1970’s and 1980’s, to the Ribeiro Committee, the Padmanabhaiya Committee and later the Malimath Committee – all made recommendations similar to Supreme Court directives. They demanded autonomy, accountability, modern training, appropriate funding and better infrastructure. Nevertheless, all the governments that came to power at the Center and in the states did not show willingness to work honestly.
The root cause of this resistance is the deep political-police relationship that strengthens Indian rule. For many politicians, the police are not impartial enforcers of the law, but an instrument of electoral advantage, bullying and security. Whether it’s stifling opposition, exerting influence over investigations, rescuing allies or targeting opponents, political interests often rely on a disciplined and corrupt police system. Granting autonomy or setting up truly independent watchdog institutions, would take away from politicians the power they have become accustomed to wielding.
This mutual dependence perpetuates corruption. Politicians patronize officials who walk the line, and in turn, officials promote illegal interests, ignore certain crimes or harass inconvenient people. Honest officers who try to act fairly often face transfers, sidelining, or intimidation. In such an environment, meaningful reform is not only ignored, but also actively opposed.
Another aspect of this opposition is how reforms damage existing earnings networks. Corruption in the police is not just a matter of bribery; It is often associated with organized systems of local leaders, contractors, criminals and businessmen. If the Independent Grievance Authority starts functioning effectively or arbitrary transfer of officers stops, illegal money and profit transactions will stop. Therefore, state level leaders often prefer cosmetic changes rather than major changes.
Continued disregard for Supreme Court directions is a serious democratic concern in itself. When states ignore Supreme Court decisions without consequences for nearly two decades, it means legal authority can be ignored if political interests are threatened. This shows that the rule of law is secondary to political convenience. Citizens see this and assume that governance in India runs on power rather than principle.
Overall, the failure of attempts at police reform is not due to complexity or ambiguity. This is the deliberate result of persistent political opposition and deep complicity. Unless this relationship is broken and reform is seen as a democratic necessity rather than a mere legal duty, corruption will continue to grow. There are recommendations, there are instructions, there is evidence – but without real political will, implementation will remain a distant promise, not a reality.
The Indian Police Department is often considered more corrupt than the police of other countries, because corruption here is not just a matter of personal wrongdoings, but it is a systemic problem that is deeply rooted in history, politics, socio-economic status and institutional weaknesses. Is deeply rooted. The colonial legacy of repression, the pervasive influence of politics, inadequate training and resources, weak mechanisms of accountability and judicial inefficiencies combine to create a system where corruption thrives.
While police corruption exists around the world, it has become much more serious, visible and common in India. Other countries have controlled corruption in their police systems through strong institutions, independent surveillance, and genuine political will. But India has failed to implement effective reforms, leaving its citizens trapped in a cycle of exploitation and mistrust.
If India has to get rid of this image, comprehensive reforms are needed. Instead of being an instrument of political control, the police will have to be transformed into a real public service institution. Salaries will have to be increased, accountability mechanisms will have to be strengthened and arrangements for independent monitoring will have to be made. The most important thing is that the political class has to give up its control over the police. Only then will the Indian Police be able to match the honesty and professionalism of the police of other countries.
Read Also:
As we know that SEO is very important for any website. Unless you do SEO…
When it comes to SEO, mostly On Page SEO and Off Page SEO are discussed.…
What is Technical SEO? In today's time, every business owner wants his website to get…
In today's time, the importance of SEO in digital marketing has increased a lot. While…
Everyone wants to be successful in life. Something good has to be done in everyone's…
Life's true that any person wants to be successful. Everybody wants to spend successful life.…