The recent trend in Maharashtra’s Nashik district of the police allegedly parading accused persons in “visible distress” and making them chant “Nashik jilla kaydacha balekilla” (Nashik district, a fortress of law and order) is disturbing. What began as a local practice risks spreading across the state, and perhaps the country. It is much like the phenomenon of “bulldozer justice”. At their core lies a deeper and disquieting recognition: The criminal justice system has failed to deliver. There is a growing temptation to project “instant justice” through public spectacle, compelling alleged offenders to proclaim the triumph of law and order or bulldoze their assets in front of rolling cameras.
The rise of such practices must also be seen in the context of a rapidly expanding social media culture. Today, social media plays a role similar to that coffee house discussions, pamphlets and satire once did. In our times, it has also been visible in moments of political upheaval — from the Arab Spring to recent developments in Nepal and Bangladesh. It cannot, therefore, be taken lightly. Yet, neither coffee houses then nor social media now can replace institutions. They can challenge, provoke and mobilise — but they cannot deliver justice or governance.
With increasing unemployment and underemployment among the youth, social media has become both a pastime and a livelihood. The race for visibility — measured in views and “hits” — has incentivised sensational content. Crime, particularly when presented in its most gory form, attracts attention and monetisation. This trend is reflected in the popular cinema of the day as well.
It is to the credit of the Nashik Police that they recognised the dangers of content glorifying crime. However, responding with counter-reels — reportedly by coercing detainees to publicly declare the supremacy of law — amounts to prescribing the wrong remedy for a serious malaise. Such actions risk undermining the very principles they seek to defend in good faith.
The police commissioner has reportedly stated that these reels were intended as a response to earlier videos made by criminals glorifying unlawful acts, and that public humiliation could act as a deterrent. While such measures may produce short-term effects, they remain superficial responses to deeper structural issues. More importantly, they raise serious concerns about due process and the rule of law, exposing the police to potential judicial scrutiny. Even well-intentioned actions can lead to prolonged legal entanglements.
There is no doubt that crime requires firm handling. India urgently needs faster trials and higher conviction rates. The figures for 2023, as disclosed by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its latest report, are distressing: Conviction rates stand at approximately 37.7 per cent in murder cases, 36.2 per cent in cases of causing hurt (including acid attacks), and a mere 17.4 per cent for rioting. Such low rates inevitably embolden criminal behaviour and contribute to the spread of content that glorifies crime.
The most effective counter to such narratives is not humiliation, but the credibility of the criminal justice system. Reels that demonstrate the logical consequence of crime — swift investigation, fair trial, and certain punishment — would be far more persuasive. It is unfortunate that the system today does not generate enough such success stories.
There is no doubt that policing must adapt to the realities of the digital age, but not at the cost of core constitutional principles. Greater visibility, supported by adequate ground staff, remains one of the most effective deterrents. Persistent vacancies of more than 20 per cent — repeatedly flagged by the Bureau of Police Research and Development — continue to undermine this basic requirement. This comes at a time when the NCRB has noted a 39 per cent increase in cybercrime during 2023, which has since grown significantly. Social media, therefore, can be used more constructively — to build awareness about cybercrime, highlight professional policing, strengthen community engagement, and showcase lawful outcomes, rather than spectacle.
Equally critical is strengthening access to justice. While live-streaming of proceedings in the Supreme Court and high courts is a welcome step, the real test lies at the level of the local magistracy — where justice is most immediate and tangible. Live streaming at this level could be a befitting response to irresponsible content creators. Greater transparency and public engagement with the law at the local level can help rebuild faith in the system — an objective the Nashik police appear to be striving for, albeit through questionable means.
India’s youth are deeply immersed in the digital ecosystem, often engaging in impulsive and unfiltered expression. The state, however, cannot afford such impulsiveness. It must avoid overreacting to irresponsible content while also resisting the temptation to mirror it, as some district police units in Maharashtra appear to be doing. Instead, the state needs to invest in well-considered strategies that reinforce the rule of law and use social media as a meaningful tool to reach out to citizens.
Ultimately, the answer to crime lies not in performative justice, but in a robust and efficient criminal justice system. Due process and high conviction rates cannot be substituted by viral reels. India has demonstrated its capacity to confront complex internal security challenges such as Naxalism and Maoism with resolve. Crime, too, can be addressed — not through spectacle, but through institutional vigour and integrity. Strengthening forensic capabilities, improving coordination between investigators and prosecutors, and ensuring a better judge-to-population ratio can significantly improve conviction rates. Visible patrolling by uniformed personnel remains an effective deterrent to street crime.
In the final analysis, the choice is between a “reel-public” driven by spectacle and a republic anchored in the rule of law. The state must be careful not to blur this distinction as justice, by its very definition, implies due process, not display.
The writer, an IPS officer of Maharashtra cadre, retired as director general, Bureau of Police Research and Development
The state must be careful not to blur this distinction as justice, by its very definition, implies due process, not display. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar) 
Share
