Justice Khanna: Public's Fear of Police Undermines Justice, Fuels Cybercrime

In a stark commentary on the state of police-public relations, Justice Sanjiv Khanna has warned that pervasive public mistrust and fear of law enforcement are creating a fertile ground for criminals, particularly in the burgeoning field of cybercrime. The senior judge’s observations highlight a critical-yet-often-overlooked impediment to the justice delivery system: the chilling effect that a negative perception of police has on a victim's willingness to report a crime.

Speaking on the challenges of tackling modern criminal activity, Justice Khanna pointed to a dangerous paradox where citizens, fearing harassment from the very agencies designed to protect them, opt for silence or capitulation. "There is a prevailing perception that law enforcement agencies exist to harass rather than help," he noted. This deep-seated fear, he argued, is not merely a matter of public opinion but a direct enabler of criminal enterprises, allowing them to operate with a reduced risk of accountability.

The consequences are particularly dire in the context of cyber scams, such as the increasingly common "digital arrest" fraud, where perpetrators impersonate law enforcement officers to extort money. Victims, already intimidated by the fake authority, are further deterred from approaching actual police due to pre-existing anxieties. “Instead of seeking justice, many end up paying the harassers out of fear,” Justice Khanna stated, underscoring how this cycle of fear directly finances criminal activity and erodes the rule of law.

---

The Legal and Systemic Underpinnings of Mistrust

Justice Khanna's remarks resonate with long-standing debates within the Indian legal and administrative spheres concerning police reform. The fear he describes is not without basis; it is rooted in a complex history of colonial-era policing structures, systemic issues of accountability, and countless anecdotal and documented instances of procedural harassment faced by ordinary citizens when attempting to engage with the justice system.

For legal practitioners, this "chilling effect" is a familiar hurdle. The initial step in any criminal proceeding—the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—can be an intimidating and arduous process for a victim. While the Supreme Court, in cases like Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. , has unequivocally held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the reality on the ground can be starkly different. Victims often report being turned away, facing intrusive and insensitive questioning, or being pressured to settle matters informally.

This systemic friction creates a high barrier to entry for accessing justice. When this is compounded by the perception of potential harassment or corruption, a victim’s cost-benefit analysis often tilts away from reporting the crime. In the digital realm, this problem is magnified. Cybercrimes are often complex, requiring specialized knowledge to investigate. A victim may fear that an already burdened and potentially unsympathetic police force will either dismiss their complaint or subject them to a frustrating and fruitless procedural ordeal.

The Vicious Cycle: How Fear Empowers Cybercriminals

The "digital arrest" scam serves as a perfect case study for the phenomenon Justice Khanna described. In these scams, criminals leverage the very authority and—critically—the fear associated with law enforcement. They may accuse a target of involvement in money laundering, terrorism, or other serious crimes, creating a high-pressure situation where the victim feels isolated and terrified.

The scam's effectiveness hinges on the victim's belief that engaging with the real police would be an equally, if not more, distressing experience. The criminal's proposition—pay a "settlement" fee to make the problem disappear—becomes an attractive alternative to navigating a perceived labyrinth of police bureaucracy, suspicion, and potential harassment. The victim is, in effect, choosing the lesser of two perceived evils.

This dynamic illustrates a fundamental breakdown in the social contract between the state and its citizens. When the public's primary emotional response to its protectors is fear rather than trust, the system's ability to function is fundamentally compromised. It allows a parallel, illegitimate system of "justice"—administered by criminals through extortion—to thrive in the shadows.

A Call for Empathy and a "Two-Way" Solution

In his address, Justice Khanna did not merely diagnose the problem; he prescribed a remedy centered on systemic change and shared responsibility. He called for "more empathy from law enforcement agencies" to tackle the public's reluctance to approach them. This points towards a need for a fundamental shift in police culture—from a posture of authority and suspicion to one of service and accessibility.

This includes practical steps such as: 1. Victim-Centric Training: Sensitizing officers, particularly at the station-house level, to handle complaints with professionalism, respect, and empathy, especially in cases of fraud and cybercrime where victims may feel shame or embarrassment. 2. Streamlining Reporting Mechanisms: Improving the accessibility and usability of online crime reporting portals and ensuring that complaints filed through these channels are treated with the same seriousness as in-person reports. This is crucial for demystifying the process and reducing intimidating face-to-face interactions. 3. Community Policing Initiatives: Fostering non-adversarial relationships between the police and the communities they serve to build familiarity and trust over time.

However, Justice Khanna emphasized that this cannot be a one-sided effort. He proposed a "two-way process that can truly help address the issue," which involves not only making law enforcement more approachable but also increasing public awareness. Citizens need to be educated about their rights, the procedures for filing complaints, and the mechanisms for escalating issues if they face improper conduct from police officers. Legal aid societies, non-profits, and the legal fraternity have a significant role to play in this public education campaign.

For lawyers and the judiciary, Justice Khanna's comments are a call to action. They serve as a reminder that the theoretical availability of justice is meaningless if practical barriers—including psychological ones—prevent citizens from accessing it. It challenges the legal community to advocate for meaningful police reforms, to hold enforcement agencies accountable through judicial oversight, and to work towards building a justice system where a victim's first instinct is to seek help, not to hide in fear.