Why do victims of police excess often refrain from formal complaints even when anonymity is assured? Suggest measures to strengthen grievance mechanisms.

After the July 20 protests against the NEET-UG paper leak, the Supreme Court set up a High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to probe alleged police brutality. Its portal allowed anonymous filing, with no name or Aadhaar needed. Yet it received only "very few complaints", and none came by email, post or in person [1]. This silence shows a lack of trust in the system. It does not show an absence of abuse.

Why victims stay silent despite anonymity

• Fear of reprisal: the accused police still patrol the victim's area. Being anonymous online does not make the victim safe offline.
• Anonymity weakens the case: an unnamed complaint cannot be verified or backed by testimony, so victims who want punishment see little point in filing one.
• Stigma: the allegations include sexual abuse of women protesters [1]. Shame and fear of being identified keep such victims from using a form.
• Short, unfamiliar window: the portal was live for about three weeks before the Action Taken Report, for events three months old [1]. Low awareness and the digital divide reduced use further.
• Distrust of institutions: no complaints arrived through any channel [1], so the problem is trust, not technology. The Second ARC has noted that the political executive misuses the police [2].

Measures to strengthen grievance mechanisms

• Go to victims: hold confidential in-person sittings near incident sites, with women officers and trained counsellors present.
• Use evidence beyond testimony: the Court let petitioners send video clips to the HPEC [1]. CCTV, body-cam and third-party footage should become standard evidence.
• Protect complainants: extend the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 to complainants, and bar any retaliatory action against them.
• Make permanent oversight independent: following Prakash Singh (2006), 31 States/UTs had set up Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) by February 2022 [2]. States can still dilute PCA powers, as Haryana's 2022 amendment showed [2]. PCAs need independent members, binding findings and public reporting of case data.
• Set timelines and give feedback: time-bound inquiries and status updates to complainants build confidence that complaining is worthwhile.
• Train the police: build the D.K. Basu safeguards and gender sensitisation into police training.

Victims stay silent because of fear, stigma and doubt that anything will follow. Special court-made panels help only case by case. Permanent PCAs that are independent and reach out to victims, as Prakash Singh intended, would give real force to Article 21's guarantee of dignity and advance SDG 16's goal of accountable institutions.