Justice Denied by Design: How systemic discrimination fuels inequity in India’s organised crime investigation

Debarati, Riddhi – Access to Justice, Sanjog

India’s criminal justice system stands at a crossroads where the promise of equal justice under law collides with the harsh reality of systemic discrimination. While conventional narratives attribute the nation’s persistently low conviction rates to inefficiencies, resource constraints, or judicial delays, a deeper examination reveals a more disturbing truth – these failures are not merely operational shortcomings but manifestations of deep-seated discrimination that systematically denies justice to India’s most vulnerable communities.

Beyond “inefficiency” – The inequity question

The widely cited problem of low conviction rates in India has long been attributed to system inefficiencies, lack of resources, or judicial delays. However, this framing obscures a more fundamental issue. For marginalised communities, these failures represent inefficiency, but also a systemic withdrawal of effective state accountability – a form of institutional discrimination that perpetuates profound inequity. The statistics paint a stark picture of this discrimination. NCRB data (2022) reveals that though 2,250 cases were registered under human trafficking, the conviction rate for these cases remained very low. The government convicted 204 traffickers in 131 cases, while 1,134 suspects were acquitted in 545 cases, resulting in an acquittal rate of 81%. These numbers point to a pipeline of exploitation that is systematically neglected, hidden, or mishandled, disproportionately affecting trafficked children, survivors of gender-based violence, and marginalised groups.

Case study: Achiya Bibi v. State of West Bengal (2014) – In this landmark Calcutta High Court judgment, the court acknowledged systemic failures in the state’s investigation and compensation mechanisms. The petitioner, a survivor of inter-state trafficking, had to wait over six years for justice, with no proper police inquiry or charge sheet filed. The court awarded her interim compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC, setting a precedent for recognising state responsibility in victim restitution for trafficking survivors.

Inequity in this context encompasses three critical dimensions: unequal access to justice, unequal application of law, and unequal outcomes based on socio-economic and caste status. When investigation systems fail, they perpetuate existing inequalities by allowing perpetrators to escape accountability while denying victims their rightful access to justice and remedial services. This creates a two-tiered justice system where access to effective legal recourse depends largely on one’s social and economic position.

Discrimination as the foundation of legal system inequity

The roots of inequity in India’s criminal justice system lie in the uncomfortable truth that societal discrimination does not disappear at the courthouse door but is actively replicated and amplified within the legal sphere. Pre-existing societal prejudices permeate every level of the justice system, creating systemic barriers that prevent marginalised communities from accessing their fundamental rights. At the investigation level, discrimination manifests through multiple mechanisms that systematically undermine cases involving marginalised victims. The Justice Malimath Committee Report (2003), appointed in 2000, emphasised that police investigations were overburdened, under-resourced, and plagued by structural bias favoring perpetrators, particularly in serious offences. Despite the committee’s 158 recommendations, including separating investigative wings, creating specialised units, enhancing forensic capacity, and instituting witness protection, most reforms remain unrealised.

The consequences of this systematic neglect are evident in the persistent failures of trafficking investigations. Research by Sanjog and other organisations tracking Anti-Human Trafficking Units reveal that trafficking case transfers from local police to AHTUs are not yet institutionalised, requiring NGO and lawyer intervention even after court judgments and Ministry of Home Affairs advisories. This creates barriers for survivors who lack access to legal advocacy, effectively creating a two-tiered justice system based on resource access. Local police investigations remain dependent on untrained personnel due to lack of community awareness about AHTUs, absence of transfer protocols, and insufficient skills to recognise trafficking cases. These systemic failures result in very low numbers of trafficking cases being referred to specialised units and even fewer charge sheets being submitted.

The prosecution stage represents another critical juncture where discrimination operates to deny justice to marginalised communities. When cases result in acquittals due to poor investigation, survivors are denied compensation as if the crime never happened. This exemplifies an inequitable justice system where registration of complaints under trafficking-related sections and supporting prosecution become criteria for eligibility for rehabilitation services. The gap between charge sheet filing and convictions reveals the depth of prosecutorial failures, and systemic weaknesses in evidence presentation, legal research, and commitment to securing justice for marginalised victims.

Recent court cases vividly illustrate how judicial processes can perpetuate inequity through both action and inaction. In Chhattisgarh, the High Court acquitted three individuals due to lack of forensic evidence, highlighting how procedural failures compound to deny justice. Meanwhile, a Delhi High Court petition exposed a systemic failure where rescued girls were not immediately produced before Child Welfare Committees, risking their protection under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The India Justice Report (2022) warns that prolonged delays, undertraining, and institutional discrimination undermine public trust, especially for victims of gendered and exploitative crimes. These missteps are not isolated anecdotes but highlight patterns of bureaucratic blind spots and procedural neglect that enable systematic exploitation.

Why it’s inequity, not just neglect

The distinction between inefficiency and inequity becomes crucial when examining how the justice system’s failures disproportionately impact specific communities. This is not random neglect but a selective abdication of the state’s constitutional duty that benefits dominant groups while maintaining existing power structures. Even seemingly neutral laws and procedures can have devastating impacts on marginalised communities through indirect discrimination. When investigation systems lack specialised capabilities required for interstate crimes, organised trafficking networks, and cases involving vulnerable populations, they inadvertently reinforce existing power imbalances, leaving the most vulnerable without recourse while allowing systematic exploitation to continue.

This selective failure represents not mere oversight but a deliberate maintenance of systems that perpetuate inequity, and generates cascading consequences that extend far beyond individual cases to create self-perpetuating cycles of vulnerability and exploitation. Low conviction rates create environments of impunity. Without structural interventions, multi-agency task forces, faster evidence gathering, victim support services, and specialised judicial routes, traffickers and other offenders of organised crimes remain ahead of the law. This sends a clear message that crimes against marginalised communities carry minimal risk, encouraging continued exploitation, undermining public trust in institutions, discouraging reporting of crimes, and creating environments where systematic violations can flourish unchecked.

For survivors of trafficking and gender-based violence, often from the most marginalised communities, inadequate investigations can mean the difference between restoration and re-victimisation, between empowerment and continued exploitation. Failing to prosecute offenders does not mean violence ceases; it means it continues in private, hidden from public responsibility, bleeding into informal economies and deepening cycles of exploitation. The systemic failure to deliver justice represents a fundamental assault on human rights and dignity. 

Achieving equity in India’s criminal justice system demands a fundamental re-evaluation of how discrimination operates within the justice framework. This transformation requires comprehensive reforms that address both structural barriers and cultural biases that perpetuate inequity. Recent investigations by Sanjog and HAQ: Centre for Child Rights reveal that over 67 trafficking cases between 2020 and 2023 in West Bengal alone remained stuck without proper charge sheets or survivor rehabilitation plans. In some states, even after High Court orders, local enforcement agencies continue to delay transfers to AHTUs or fail to assign women officers, creating bottlenecks at every stage.

Towards an equitable justice system

Implementation requires political will and sustained commitment to equity over existing power structures. Successful examples demonstrate the potential for transformation. Lucknow’s recent restructuring of its AHTU under the crime branch led to the registration of 67 cases between 2023 and mid-2025, the rescue of over 200 minors, and reunification of 11 children with families. This demonstrates that empowered investigators with training, technology, inter-state cooperation, and institutional backing can markedly improve outcome metrics.

The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) provides interlinked databases across over 14,000 police stations, while the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) captured over ten million records by October 2024. However, unless deployed with investigative clarity and institutional accountability, technology remains ornamental rather than transformative. Recent studies on spatial clusters of crimes reveal persistent hot-spots that require targeted interventions, supporting the need for data-driven, locally tailored approaches that align with equity-focused organisations’ methodologies.

Organisations like Sanjog demonstrate how survivor-centered approaches can directly challenge the discriminatory power structures embedded within traditional justice processes. Rather than operating as traditional service providers that maintain hierarchical relationships, such organisations position themselves as co-travelers with survivors, fundamentally disrupting the paternalistic dynamics that characterise mainstream approaches. However, achieving equitable justice requires more than individual organisational innovation, it demands coordinated structural reforms that dismantle discriminatory practices across all levels of the system. Mandatory sensitivity training for all justice actors must address unconscious biases and discriminatory practices that target certain caste communities. When investigations consistently fail specific communities while serving others effectively, this selective failure constitutes a form of state-sanctioned discrimination that violates constitutional principles.

Concluding thought

Justice cannot be measured only by conviction rates or speed. It must help people heal, stop harm from repeating, and make space for those most often left out. Otherwise, what we call justice remains yet another system that delays, deflects, and denies. Concrete steps toward this transformation must include:

• State-wise implementation of specialised Anti-Human Trafficking Units with independent charge and cross-jurisdictional authority, building on Lucknow’s successful model
• Mandatory establishment of trauma-informed investigation protocols in all states, contrasting with current failures seen in Chhattisgarh’s acquittals due to poor evidence collection and Delhi’s violations of child protection protocols
• Creation of survivor-led oversight committees in each state to monitor case progress and ensure meaningful participation, moving beyond the current system where survivors require NGO intervention even after court orders
• Implementation of robust compensation mechanisms that operate independently of conviction outcomes, addressing the current inequity when cases fail due to investigative failures

Equitable justice demands that investigations no longer harbor violence through discriminatory practices but actively dismantle systems of oppression, repair historical harm, prevent future exploitation, and reaffirm equal dignity of all citizens. This transformation represents both a systemic challenge to entrenched power structures and an urgent national project that cannot be delayed without further perpetuating state-sanctioned discrimination against India’s most vulnerable communities.