A Lawyer’s Concern Over Declining Public Trust in Enforcement Institutions
In the many decades of my legal practice, I have witnessed India’s constitutional institutions evolve through difficult phases. Yet, in recent years, I have become increasingly concerned about the growing erosion of public trust in some of the very systems meant to protect citizens — particularly enforcement agencies and civic authorities. The police are expected to function as guardians of public safety and the rule of law. However, across cities and towns, one increasingly encounters citizens who feel hesitant, frustrated, or even intimidated while approaching institutions meant to serve them. Such perceptions, whether fully justified or not, are deeply unhealthy for any democracy.
What worries me most is not merely administrative delay or inefficiency, but the growing public belief that even landmark judicial pronouncements are often ignored or inconsistently implemented at the ground level.
Three important Supreme Court judgments deserve renewed public attention in this regard. The first is Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1992), where the Supreme Court clarified that locus standi is generally foreign to criminal law, and that any citizen can set the criminal law into motion where an offence is disclosed. The second is the landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), in which the Apex Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where a cognizable offence is disclosed. The ruling was intended to ensure that citizens are not denied access to the criminal justice process merely because of administrative reluctance or discretion at the police station level.
More recently, in Pradip Sharma, IAS vs. State of Gujarat (2025), the Supreme Court revisited the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari and reiterated the importance of prompt registration of cognizable complaints without unnecessary preliminary barriers.
These judgments were not delivered in isolation. They reflect a constitutional philosophy: that the rule of law must remain accessible to ordinary citizens irrespective of influence, wealth, or status. Yet, many citizens continue to feel that complaints involving influential persons often move slowly through the system, while ordinary individuals struggle to secure timely responses. Such perceptions — whether arising from actual experience or accumulated public distrust — gradually weaken confidence in institutions.
Equally concerning is the widespread frustration regarding urban governance and civic enforcement. In rapidly expanding cities such as Pune, residents frequently raise questions about zoning violations, unregulated construction, traffic congestion, encroachment, and pressure on civic infrastructure. Citizens often complain that repeated representations to authorities do not always translate into visible corrective action. Public trust suffers further when there appears to be inconsistency in enforcement. Rules that are applied strictly in some cases are perceived to be relaxed in others. This creates a dangerous impression that accountability depends not merely on law, but also on influence and access.
I believe this is not merely an administrative problem — it is a democratic concern. India’s institutions remain strong, but institutions derive their legitimacy from public confidence. When citizens begin to feel unheard, ignored, or discouraged from seeking lawful remedies, the distance between governance and the governed widens steadily.
This is why greater institutional transparency, responsiveness, and accountability are urgently needed. Supreme Court rulings must not remain confined to law journals and courtrooms; they must translate into consistent administrative culture on the ground. At the same time, citizens too must engage constructively and responsibly with democratic institutions. Criticism should strengthen systems, not weaken them. The objective must always be reform, accountability, and restoration of public trust.
The phrase “Who will guard the guardians?” is not merely rhetorical. It is a constitutional question that every democracy must continuously ask itself. Only when institutions remain answerable to law — and responsive to citizens — can public faith truly endure.
Editor’s Note:
The views expressed are solely those of the author. TheNews21 has moderated portions of the article to comply with legal and editorial standards. References to institutional failures and public perceptions reflect the author’s personal opinions and concerns, and have not been independently verified by TheNews21.
