India’s policing system, rooted in the colonial framework of the Police Act of 1861, continues to face systemic challenges that undermine its effectiveness, impartiality, and alignment with democratic values. The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2025 by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, alongside the India Justice Report (IJR) 2025 by Tata Trusts, provides a sobering assessment of the state of policing in India. These reports, based on extensive surveys and data analysis, highlight pervasive issues such as systemic bias, custodial torture, lack of accountability, understaffing, inadequate infrastructure, low diversity, eroded public trust, surveillance overreach, regional disparities, and the enduring colonial legacy. Despite recent reform efforts, the gap between rhetoric and reality remains stark. This article critically examines these challenges, evaluates the progress of reforms, and proposes a roadmap for a more humane, accountable, and effective policing system in India.
Table of Contents
1. Systemic Bias: Entrenched Prejudices in Policing
Systemic bias within India’s police forces is a deeply rooted issue, perpetuating discrimination against marginalized communities. The SPIR 2025, which surveyed over 8,000 police personnel across 17 states, reveals alarming levels of prejudice based on caste, religion, gender identity, and political affiliation. For example, 62% of Delhi police personnel believe Muslims are “naturally inclined” to crime, while in Gujarat, 68% view Dalits and 56% view Adivasis similarly. These biases are not isolated but reflect broader societal prejudices internalized and amplified within the police force.
Homophobia and transphobia are equally concerning, with 38% of police personnel considering transgender individuals “naturally prone to crime” and 57% believing queer individuals negatively impact society. Such attitudes influence arrests, investigations, and legal proceedings, disproportionately targeting marginalized groups. The report also notes political bias, with police often aligning with ruling parties, undermining impartiality in handling protests or dissent.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often downplays these biases as individual failings rather than institutional issues. However, the data suggests a systemic problem rooted in recruitment, training, and a lack of diversity. The absence of mandatory sensitization programs and the failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) perpetuate a culture where discriminatory practices thrive.
2. Custodial Torture and Attitudes Toward Extralegal Violence: A Persistent Human Rights Crisis
Custodial torture remains a grave concern, with the SPIR 2025 highlighting its widespread acceptance among police personnel. The report finds that 55% of police believe “tough methods” are necessary to instill fear, with 30% justifying third-degree torture for serious crimes and 9% even for petty offenses. Alarmingly, 25% support mob violence in cases like sexual assault or child abduction, and 22% favor extrajudicial killings over legal trials. This normalization of violence is particularly acute against marginalized groups, including Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and slum dwellers.
A deeper look into attitudes toward mob violence reveals stark regional variations. The SPIR 2025 “Index on Justifiability of Mob Violence” (Table 2.7) shows that police personnel in Gujarat are the most likely to justify mob violence, with 57% believing it is justified to a great extent, followed by Andhra Pradesh (51%) and Maharashtra (50%). In contrast, Kerala police are the least likely to justify such violence, with 0% supporting it to a great extent and 91% stating it is not at all justified. Other states with high justification rates include Tamil Nadu (46%) and Odisha (42%), while states like West Bengal (2%), Nagaland (2%), and Kerala (0%) show minimal support for mob violence. Delhi (15%) and Uttar Pradesh (10%) fall in the middle, but even in these states, a significant minority (25% and 20%, respectively) find mob violence somewhat justified.
This data underscores a troubling trend: in states where police biases against marginalized communities are pronounced (e.g., Gujarat, where 68% of police view Dalits as crime-prone), there is also a higher acceptance of extralegal violence. This correlation suggests that systemic prejudices fuel a culture of impunity, where police see mob violence as a legitimate extension of their own coercive practices.
Custodial deaths have surged, with 144 reported between 2017–2018, and official figures likely understate the scale. The National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) reported 111 custodial deaths in 2020 alone, while the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 70. Between 2018–2022, zero convictions were recorded for custodial deaths, underscoring a profound lack of accountability.
Legal and Institutional Failures: India signed the UNCAT in 1997 but has not ratified it, rendering it non-binding. The absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law, despite recommendations from the Law Commission (273rd Report) and Malimath Committee, allows impunity to persist. The judiciary’s passive role, with magistrates often failing to document abuse, and inadequate medical examinations by non-specialists further exacerbate the issue.
Critical Perspective: The establishment narrative often frames custodial violence as a necessity for maintaining order, yet this ignores the moral and constitutional violations under Article 21 (Right to Life). The high justification of mob violence in states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh reflects a broader tolerance for extralegal methods, perpetuated by political pressure for quick results and public tolerance of such methods due to judicial delays. Conversely, Kerala’s progressive stance suggests that better training, adherence to legal procedures, and a rights-based approach can shift police culture.
3. Accountability: A Broken System
Accountability mechanisms in Indian policing are woefully inadequate. Investigations into custodial deaths are typically conducted by the same department, leading to biased outcomes. The Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India mandated independent police complaint authorities, but most states have failed to establish them or include civil society representation. Political interference further undermines accountability, with ministers misusing police for personal or political gains.
The SPIR 2025 notes that only 41% of police personnel claim arrest procedures are “always followed,” while 24% admit they are “rarely or never” adhered to. In Karnataka, 70% of police acknowledge non-compliance, while Kerala shows 94% adherence, highlighting regional disparities.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often touts internal inquiries as sufficient, but the lack of independent oversight and zero convictions for custodial deaths expose this as a facade. The failure to implement NHRC’s 2021 directive for CCTV cameras with night vision in all police stations further erodes transparency. States with high justification for mob violence, like Gujarat, are also likely to have weaker accountability mechanisms, as the acceptance of extralegal methods undermines adherence to due process.
4. Understaffing: A Crippling Shortage
India’s police force is severely understaffed, with a 21% vacancy rate across state forces, equating to only 154.84 officers per 100,000 people against the UN-recommended 222. States like West Bengal (39.42%), Mizoram (35.06%), and Haryana (32%) face the highest shortages. This results in overburdened officers working 16–18-hour shifts, leading to stress, inefficiency, and compromised policing.
The IJR 2025 notes that understaffing impacts crime prevention, response times, and investigation quality, with only 16 lakh officers operational out of 21 lakh sanctioned posts. Rural areas are particularly affected, with a decline in police stations exacerbating inequities in law enforcement.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often attributes understaffing to budgetary constraints, but the underutilization of modernization funds (e.g., only 6% of Rs 620 crore used in FY23) suggests mismanagement and lack of priority. This shortage also fuels reliance on extralegal methods, as overworked officers bypass due process, a trend likely exacerbated in states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where mob violence is more readily justified.
5. Infrastructure Deficiencies: Obsolete and Underfunded
Police infrastructure in India is outdated and underfunded, hampering operational efficiency. The IJR 2025 highlights significant shortages in weaponry (e.g., 75% in Rajasthan, 71% in West Bengal) and vehicles (30.5% deficiency). Communication networks like POLNET are often non-functional, and forensic infrastructure is inadequate, with only 0.33 forensic experts per 100,000 people compared to 20–50 in developed nations.
The Modernization of Police Forces (MPF) scheme, extended to 2025–26, aims to address these gaps through investments in CCTV, forensic labs, and GPS-enabled vehicles. However, states have historically underutilized these funds, with only 14% of allocated modernization funds used in 2015–16.
Critical Perspective: The establishment promotes technological upgrades as a panacea, but without addressing understaffing and training deficits, these investments yield limited results. The lack of modern investigative tools pushes police toward coercive methods, perpetuating human rights violations, especially in states with a high tolerance for mob violence.
6. Diversity: A Long Road to Representation
Diversity in India’s police forces remains abysmal, undermining their ability to serve a heterogeneous population. As of 2022, women constitute only 12% of the police force, far below the recommended 33%, with Jharkhand projected to take 206 years to meet this target. Only 4.2% of police stations are women-specific, and rural areas have just 17% of these.
Representation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) is also inadequate, with Karnataka being the only state meeting diversity quotas in both police and judiciary. The SPIR 2022 noted that low diversity exacerbates biases against marginalized communities.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often cites incremental increases in women’s representation as progress, but the slow pace and lack of affirmative action for caste and religious minorities reveal a lack of commitment. Greater diversity could enhance social sensitivity and reduce custodial violence, but systemic resistance persists. In states like Gujarat, where biases against Dalits and Adivasis are pronounced, low diversity likely contributes to the high justification of mob violence.
7. Public Trust: A Fragile Relationship
Public trust in India’s police is alarmingly low, with less than 25% of citizens expressing confidence, particularly among minorities and poorer communities. The SPIR 2023 found that Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and the poor view police stations as sites of risk rather than protection. This distrust stems from custodial violence, corruption, and perceived political partisanship.
Crime underreporting is rampant due to victim reluctance, police suppression of data, and flaws in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) methodology. The SPIR 2025 notes that 74% of police personnel endorse legal processes, suggesting potential for reform, but public perception remains negative due to lived experiences of abuse. In states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where mob violence is widely justified, public trust is likely even lower among marginalized communities who bear the brunt of such violence.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often attributes distrust to public misunderstanding, but the data points to systemic failures. Community policing initiatives, recommended by the Model Police Act (2006), could bridge this gap, but their implementation is sporadic and lacks political backing.
8. Surveillance: Balancing Security and Privacy
Surveillance has become a double-edged sword in Indian policing. The SPIR 2023 noted strong public support for CCTV surveillance, with 51% of households equipped, but concerns over privacy persist, especially regarding personal and financial data. The use of AI, facial recognition, and drones has expanded, particularly in states like Telangana, but awareness of privacy violations, such as the Pegasus scandal, remains low.
Surveillance is often used to curb dissent, disproportionately targeting minorities and activists, as seen in the misuse of sedition laws. The absence of a robust privacy law, as emphasized by Justice J. Chelameswar, allows unchecked data collection, often serving political interests rather than public welfare.
Critical Perspective: The establishment frames surveillance as essential for security, but the lack of transparency and regulation raises questions about its true purpose. The poor and marginalized, who trust police the least, are most vulnerable to surveillance overreach, undermining democratic freedoms.
9. Regional Performance and Attitudes Toward Mob Violence: Disparities in Policing
The IJR 2025 ranks southern states highly for policing, with Telangana leading (score: 6.48/10), followed by Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Telangana’s success is attributed to technological innovations like the Hawk Eye App, facial recognition, and rapid response systems. In contrast, West Bengal ranks last due to high vacancies (39.42%) and poor infrastructure.
Kerala stands out for high compliance with arrest procedures (94%), while Karnataka lags, with 70% of police admitting non-compliance. These disparities reflect variations in funding, political will, and administrative efficiency. The SPIR 2025 data on attitudes toward mob violence further highlights these regional variations. Kerala’s progressive stance—0% of police justify mob violence to a great extent, and 91% believe it is not at all justified—aligns with its high procedural compliance, suggesting a stronger adherence to legal norms. Conversely, Gujarat’s 57% justification rate for mob violence correlates with its reported biases against Dalits and Adivasis, indicating a culture of impunity that undermines legal processes.
Other states show mixed results. Andhra Pradesh (51% justification to a great extent) and Tamil Nadu (46%) rank high in overall policing performance but exhibit concerning attitudes toward mob violence. West Bengal and Nagaland, both at 2% justification to a great extent, align with their lower overall policing performance, suggesting that while attitudes may be less permissive of extralegal violence, systemic issues like understaffing hinder effectiveness.
To provide a clearer comparison, the table below consolidates key metrics across selected states, including attitudes toward mob violence, compliance with arrest procedures, bias against marginalized communities, and overall policing performance scores from the IJR 2025. This table highlights the correlation between permissive attitudes toward mob violence, systemic biases, and procedural lapses, offering a snapshot of regional disparities in policing.
Gujarat, with the highest justification for mob violence (57%), also exhibits significant bias against Dalits (68%), suggesting that prejudice and tolerance for extralegal violence go hand in hand. Kerala, with 0% justification and 94% compliance with arrest procedures, demonstrates that a rights-based approach can reduce reliance on extralegal methods. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, despite high overall policing scores, show concerning attitudes toward mob violence (51% and 40%, respectively), indicating that technological or administrative success does not necessarily translate into a culture of accountability.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often highlights southern states as models, but this glosses over national systemic issues. Telangana’s tech-driven approach, while effective, raises privacy concerns, and its replicability in resource-constrained states like West Bengal is questionable. The high justification of mob violence in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh undermines their policing performance, as it reflects a tolerance for vigilantism that erodes the rule of law.
10. Colonial Legacy: A System Out of Time
The Police Act of 1861, enacted post-1857 revolt to suppress dissent, remains the backbone of India’s policing system. This colonial framework prioritizes state control over public service, making police accountable to political executives rather than citizens. Post-independence, recommendations from the National Police Commission (1977–81), Ribeiro Committee (1998), and Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000) for a service-oriented model faced resistance from politicians and bureaucrats reluctant to relinquish control.
The Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) ruling mandated reforms like fixed tenures for officers and independent complaint authorities, but implementation remains patchy. The colonial mindset persists in practices like custodial torture and excessive force during protests, as seen in the CAA-NRC and farmers’ protests. The acceptance of mob violence in states like Gujarat further reflects this legacy, as it mirrors the colonial use of extralegal force to maintain order.
Critical Perspective: The establishment often cites legal reforms like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as progress, but without dismantling the colonial structure, these changes are superficial. Political unwillingness to cede control remains the biggest barrier to reform.
11. Recent Reforms: Progress or Piecemeal?
Recent reforms show tentative progress but fall short of systemic overhaul. The eSakshya app, developed by the National Informatics Centre, enables digital evidence collection, while mandatory FIR registration regardless of jurisdiction aims to reduce underreporting. The Supreme Court’s 2020 directive for CCTV in police stations and the continuation of the MPF scheme until 2025–26 signal modernization efforts.
The SPIR 2025 notes that 79% of police personnel advocate for human rights training, indicating openness to change, particularly in states like Kerala, where attitudes toward mob violence are progressive. States like Telangana have leveraged technology effectively, but nationwide implementation is uneven due to funding and training gaps.
Critical Perspective: The establishment promotes these reforms as transformative, but they address symptoms rather than root causes. In states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where mob violence is widely justified, technological reforms alone cannot address the cultural acceptance of extralegal methods. Without addressing political interference, understaffing, and the colonial legacy, these measures risk being cosmetic. The lack of a torture prevention law and independent oversight remains a glaring omission.
12. The Path Forward: A Roadmap for Reform
To transform India’s policing system, a multifaceted approach is essential, grounded in accountability, diversity, and modernization:
- Legislative Overhaul: Replace the Police Act of 1861 with a modern, rights-based law aligned with the Model Police Act (2006). Ratify UNCAT and enact a comprehensive anti-torture law to curb custodial violence and address the acceptance of mob violence.
- Independent Oversight: Establish Police Complaints Authorities with civil society representation, as mandated by Prakash Singh vs. Union of India. Adopt the UK’s Independent Office for Police Conduct model for transparent investigations.
- Diversity and Sensitization: Increase representation of women, SC, ST, and OBC communities through affirmative action. Implement mandatory training on human rights, gender sensitivity, and bias mitigation, particularly in states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where biases and acceptance of mob violence are pronounced.
- Filling Vacancies: Expedite recruitment to address the 21% vacancy rate, prioritizing rural areas. Improve working conditions to reduce officer stress and enhance efficiency.
- Infrastructure Modernization: Fully utilize MPF funds for weaponry, vehicles, and forensic labs. Upgrade CCTNS with real-time analytics to reduce reliance on confessions.
- Community Policing: Scale up community policing models to rebuild trust, involving trained social workers and law students, as recommended by the NHRC.
- Surveillance Regulation: Enact a robust privacy law to regulate data collection and prevent misuse, ensuring surveillance serves public welfare, not political interests.
- Judicial and Forensic Reforms: Expand judicial capacity to reduce backlogs and establish regional forensic labs to support scientific investigations.
Critical Perspective: The establishment may resist these reforms due to political and bureaucratic inertia, but public pressure and civil society advocacy can drive change. Citizens must demand accountability beyond electoral cycles, leveraging platforms like X to amplify calls for reform. Addressing the cultural acceptance of mob violence in states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh will require targeted interventions, including sensitization programs and stricter accountability measures.
Conclusion
The status of policing in India in 2025 reflects a system at a crossroads. The SPIR 2025 and IJR 2025 expose deep-seated issues—systemic bias, custodial torture, lack of accountability, understaffing, infrastructure deficits, low diversity, eroded trust, surveillance overreach, regional disparities, and a colonial legacy—that undermine justice delivery. The SPIR 2025 data on mob violence further highlights the cultural acceptance of extralegal methods in states like Gujarat (57% justification) and Andhra Pradesh (51%), while Kerala’s progressive stance (0% justification) offers a model for reform.
Southern states like Telangana show promise, but the national picture is one of systemic failure, disproportionately harming marginalized communities. Recent reforms, such as the eSakshya app and CCTV mandates, are steps forward, but they lack the depth to address structural issues. A comprehensive overhaul, prioritizing legislative reform, independent oversight, and community engagement, is urgently needed to align policing with constitutional values. As Justice S. Muralidhar stated at the SPIR 2025 launch, “We should not fear the police in our own country. The police is a service force”. Achieving this vision requires dismantling colonial legacies, confronting biases, and fostering a police force that serves all citizens equitably.
References:
- Status of Policing in India Report 2025 Reveals Bias and Law Enforcement Failures – Frontline
- India Justice Report 2025: A System Failing the Common Citizen – nextias.com
- Revamping India’s Police System – drishtiias.com
- Police Torture and Unaccountability in India – vajiramandravi.com
- Issues faced by policing in India – ilearncana.com
- Custodial Torture and Need for Police Reforms – drishtiias.com
- Police Reform In India In 2024- Explained Pointwise | ForumIAS
- Police reforms in India – pmfias.com
- Launch Of Status Of Policing Report In India Report 2025 – livelaw.in
- Torture in Police Custody: Challenge in India’s Justice System – nextias.com
- Police Torture and Unaccountability in India – studyiq.com
- TORTURE IN POLICE CUSTODY CONTINUES TO PLAGUE INDIA’S JUSTICE SYSTEM – Lukmaan IAS
- Police Reforms in India – studyiq.com
- 2023 Report on State of Policing in India with focus on Surveillance – Mainstream Weekly
- Analytical Reports – prsindia.org
- Challenges Facing the Indian Police System – thelaw.institute
- @arsh1902, 16:22 2024-07-09 IST
- @BhimArmyChief, 18:16 2025-05-02 IST
