Delay and selective prosecution weaken public trust in the criminal justice system among marginalised communities. Critically analyse.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →Article 14 promises equal protection of laws. In Hussainara Khatoon (1979), the Supreme Court read Article 21 to include the right to a speedy trial [4]. Kerala's Muthanga case exposes the gap between these promises and practice. The 2003 Adivasi land-agitation case reached a trial verdict only in 2026. The death of an Adivasi protester in the same police operation was never prosecuted. Delay and selectivity do erode trust, but not uniformly.
How delay erodes trust
- Process becomes punishment: about three-fourths of India's prisoners are undertrials, and SCs and STs together make up nearly a third of them [1]. The poor wait in jail for justice.
- Evidence decays: over decades, witnesses die or turn hostile. At Muthanga, the only accused held responsible for the constable's death died before the verdict, so neither family got closure.
How selective prosecution erodes trust
- Asymmetric scrutiny: protesters face long criminal trials, while deaths in police action end as administrative labels. NHRC guidelines require a magisterial inquiry, with next of kin involved, in every death in police action [2]. Ignoring them signals whose life counts.
- Weak accountability: PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) mandated independent investigation of deaths in police encounters [3], yet compliance remains uneven.
- Legitimacy deficit: communities come to see the police as an adversary rather than a protector, which deepens tribal alienation.
The other side
- Safeguards exist: the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 created Exclusive Special Courts for speedy trial [5]. Article 39A adds free legal aid.
- Appellate correction: the Kerala High Court suspended the Muthanga sentences pending appeal, which shows the system can correct itself.
- Systemic, not always targeted: delay stems largely from vacancies, adjournments and weak forensics, not only from bias. Marginalised groups still turn to courts and commissions as their last resort.
Delay and selectivity reinforce each other. Trust erodes less from any single verdict than from the pattern. Time-bound trials, mandatory independent inquiries into every death caused by state action, and police accountability can restore faith. That would make Article 14's promise of equality real and advance SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions).
Sources
- 1NCRB, Prison Statistics India 2022: undertrials' share of prisoners; caste-wise composition of undertrials
- 2NHRC, Guidelines on Death in Custody/Encounter/Police Action (incl. Magisterial Enquiry guidelines): mandatory magisterial inquiry with next of kin in every death in police action
- 3Supreme Court of India, *PUCL v. State of Maharashtra* (2014): guidelines for independent investigation of police encounter deaths
- 4Supreme Court of India, *Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar* (1979): speedy trial as part of Article 21
- 5The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (PRS)act,-2015.pdf): Exclusive Special Courts for speedy trial