A few days back, some media reports and WhatsApp groups made much of the fact that as per NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), Kolkata is the safest city in India for the second year in a row. The reports stated that the total number of cases slid from 18,277 in 2020 to 14,591 in 2021. A report like this should have made me feel good. It scared the daylights out of me.

Years ago, in Delhi, while I was fresh in service, I received a call from a University Professor’s wife who was a family friend. The Professor was out of station and she wanted to lodge an FIR regarding a theft in her house. She was in raw panic over going to a Police Station. Even when I offered to send my brother to accompany her to the Police Station, she was reluctant. She wanted a Police officer she knew to accompany her so that she would not be harassed. Most law–abiding citizens think several times before visiting a Police Station.

An MIT study in an Indian state found that more than 70 per cent of crime victims never reported incidents because many felt that the police would either do nothing or ask for a bribe to file a complaint. More than 80 per cent said no constable had ever visited their neighbourhood. This is despite a 24/7 work hour for most police officers and fairly safe neighbourhoods. Rather than playing victim, we, the Police and ex-Police should acknowledge that there is a problem. People just do not trust us. One of the main reasons is the almost absolute impossibility of lodging an FIR under the appropriate sections of law without “contacts.”

As per law, even if there is a false or frivolous complaint, police is duty-bound to lodge an FIR. Only after registering an FIR, they can refuse investigation with written reasons; they can file a report as complaint being true but sufficient evidence could not be collected (FRT); they can file a report that there was a mistake of fact in the complaint (FRMF); and they can file a report that the complaint was false (FRF) and prosecute the complainant. Absent the above, the Police officer should, and must, submit a Charge Sheet (CS). The option they just do not have is not to file an FIR.

On the other hand, all over the country, much energy and ingenuity is spent in avoiding the registration of the FIR. Remember the film, “Pink,” where the victims were given a royal run-around as to where to register the FIR? Even that is illegal. Any complainant, approaching any police station, should be able to lodge the FIR there. It is the Police station’s duty to transfer the case to the appropriate police station, after registering the FIR.

Why does this happen? Part of the reason is reports and inferences like this NCRB report. NCRB has reported the data as has been received by it. There is no way of knowing how authentic this data is, given such rampant suppression and minimisation. As such, there is no way the data of a city can be compared with the data of another city as the rates of suppression (non-registration of case), minimisation (registration of case under a diluted section of law) and non-reporting of cases vary from city to city and state to state. It cannot also reflect any trend because the rates do not stay the same over time in any place – it depends on the attitude of the leadership, both political and Police, active citizenry demanding accountability, judicial activism and so on. From NCRB figures which are based on such spurious inputs to concluding that a particular city is safe, safer or safest is a gigantic leap of faith. Unfortunately, such headlines and chest-thumping create their own hangover and the figures become sticky upward. Thus, the Police of a city gets hoist on its own petard and will try its level best to keep the figures below previous “achievement,” even if artificially, by simply not recording the cases or by diluting the sections of law.

Even without NCRB report, because of the obsession with crime data, every officer would like to keep the figures below his predecessor’s. This is inherently flawed because, if things are transparent, there is no way the crime figures would come down. The population is increasing. The basic reasons behind crime – greed, depravity, economic conditions, police-population ratio, etc. – none of it is showing any improvement. Real justice keeps getting more and more distant, given the burgeoning backlog of cases with the Courts and the Police. Conviction rates remain abysmal.

There is also the fear of the system being overwhelmed. The number of Police for 1,00,000 population in India is one of the lowest amongst comparable countries in the world, 152 against the UN norm of 222. The ratio in some of the countries are: Italy (456), Mexico (465), France (422), Germany (336), Pakistan (182), Singapore (810), USA (239), UK (212) and Belgium (334). Many Police officers fear that registering the FIRs without filtration would lead to too many false and frivolous cases being registered, further depleting an already stretched out police force.

Are these assumptions correct?

Partly through force of circumstances and partly through personal commitment, in 2007, a young SP did something radical in his district, Jalpaiguri – it became known as the “Jalpaiguri experiment.” In the teeth of severe opposition by his subordinates and superiors, he mandated that all complaints be registered, whether true, false, debatable, whatever. He also started taking action against officers who tried to suppress or minimise. As apprehended, the crime figures in the district shot up immediately, by more than four times, from a monthly average of 249 cases to 1060 cases. However, guess what, the heavens didn’t fall! The disposal of cases doubled. Contrary to apprehensions, there was no significant increase in the number of false or frivolous cases. The court cases reduced drastically. People used to approach the courts because they were not getting the desired remedy at the Police station. When FIRs were registered freely and properly, there was no need for them to go to the courts. The number of persons who surrendered in the Courts went up from a monthly average of 113 to 496. This, in fact, led to a slight decrease in the number of arrests. This indicated that there is a natural tendency for accused persons to submit to the majesty of law unless the eco-system is vitiated by suppression and minimisation. Finally, the conviction rate doubled.

At most, if by some miracle, Police becomes suddenly super-efficient, the rate of increase of cases might come down. Actual reduction in the absolute figures may indicate that there is “efficient” suppression and minimisation or there is gross under-reporting. This would lead to smugness on the part of policy makers, lack of respect of the citizenry for rule of law, apathy, goonda raj and complete vitiation of the fabric of society. After a point, this leads to the public taking law unto their own hands, public lynching, etc.. Decline in absolute number of Police cases scares me.