Introduction
For a family seeking justice after a crime, the first step is usually expected to be simple: approach the police, report the incident and allow the legal system to take its course. In reality, the process can become much more complicated. Families may have to make repeated visits to police stations, approach senior officers, submit written complaints, move before courts or contact oversight institutions before they feel that their grievance has received adequate attention.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Do families need to protest, approach the media or create public pressure before their grievances are taken seriously?
A protest is a legitimate form of democratic expression when conducted peacefully and within the law. However, it should not become the practical gateway through which an ordinary person obtains attention from institutions that are already legally responsible for receiving and addressing grievances.
India has several formal mechanisms through which a person can challenge police inaction, seek judicial intervention or approach independent and statutory bodies. The problem, therefore, is not necessarily the absence of remedies. It is also about whether these remedies are accessible, understandable, timely and capable of providing meaningful relief.
The issue becomes particularly important in cases involving alleged police inaction, delayed investigation, custodial violence, missing persons, deaths, sexual offences and other situations where the family may already be under considerable emotional and financial pressure.
1. The First Point of Contact: The Police
For most criminal complaints, the police are the first institution approached by a victim or their family. The registration of information relating to a cognizable offence is therefore an important entry point into the criminal justice system.
The law does not leave a complainant entirely dependent upon the discretion of one police officer. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides mechanisms for dealing with situations where information relating to an offence is not properly acted upon.
Where a person is dissatisfied with the police response, the law provides avenues for approaching higher police authorities and, in appropriate circumstances, the Magistrate.
This is important because the grievance system is intended to operate progressively. A person should not ordinarily have to organise a public demonstration simply to communicate that a cognizable offence has allegedly occurred.
However, the existence of a legal remedy and the practical ability to use that remedy are two different things.
A person unfamiliar with legal procedures may not know whom to approach, what documents to submit, how to preserve evidence or when judicial intervention can be sought. A family may also hesitate to approach senior officers because of fear, financial limitations or a lack of confidence in the system.
Thus, access to justice begins before a case reaches a courtroom. It begins with whether an ordinary person can successfully enter the legal system in the first place.
2. When Police Inaction Becomes the Grievance
One of the most difficult situations arises when the complaint itself concerns the conduct or inaction of the police.
If a family alleges that an FIR has not been registered, an investigation has been delayed, evidence has not been collected or the police have failed to take appropriate action, asking the same institution to address the grievance may create an obvious difficulty.
The legal framework therefore provides escalation mechanisms.
A complainant may approach senior police authorities and, where appropriate, the Magistrate. Constitutional courts may also exercise their jurisdiction where the circumstances justify judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of fair and proper investigation. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Court addressed the registration of FIRs and held that registration is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, subject to the limited circumstances recognised in the judgment.
The significance of such decisions extends beyond the registration of an FIR. They reflect a broader principle: the criminal justice system cannot function effectively if the first institutional gateway is permitted to remain inaccessible.
3. The Magistrate as an Institutional Safeguard
The Magistrate occupies an important position between the individual complainant and the investigative machinery.
Where police authorities fail to respond adequately, the criminal procedure framework permits a complainant to seek appropriate directions from the Magistrate in accordance with law.
This provides an important safeguard because the complainant is not completely dependent upon police discretion.
However, this remedy also assumes a certain level of legal awareness. A person must know that such a remedy exists, understand the basic procedure and, often, obtain legal assistance to effectively present the grievance.
This raises a larger question about the meaning of access to justice.
Is a remedy genuinely accessible if a person does not know that the remedy exists?
A legal system can contain multiple avenues of redressal and still remain difficult to navigate for ordinary citizens.
4. The Role of the Prosecutor
The criminal justice process does not end with investigation. Once a case enters prosecution, another institutional actor becomes important: the Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution is conducted by the State, but criminal proceedings directly affect victims and their families. Modern criminal procedure increasingly recognises the importance of victim participation and the victim’s interests in the criminal process.
The family may have questions about the progress of proceedings, charges, witnesses, adjournments or other procedural developments. Lack of communication can create the perception that the case has disappeared into an institutional system.
This does not mean that prosecutors are required to accept every demand made by a victim or family. Prosecutorial decisions must remain governed by law and professional responsibility.
However, institutional accountability also requires understandable communication.
A family should not have to depend upon media coverage or public pressure merely to understand what stage its case has reached.
5. Courts: The Last Resort or an Early Safeguard?
Courts are often viewed as the ultimate remedy when administrative mechanisms fail. Yet in many cases, approaching a court is itself a significant burden.
Legal proceedings involve lawyers, documentation, hearings, expenses and time. For a financially or socially vulnerable family, these barriers can be substantial.
The High Courts possess wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, while the Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Courts have also intervened in exceptional cases involving investigation, custodial violence, unlawful detention and other serious violations.
At the same time, judicial intervention must remain within constitutional and procedural limits. Courts cannot simply replace every investigative or administrative decision with their own.
The objective should therefore be to ensure that judicial remedies remain available when ordinary institutional mechanisms fail, without making litigation the mandatory route for every grievance.
6. Oversight Bodies: Another Layer of Accountability
India also has several institutions intended to provide oversight and assistance.
These include bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions, Police Complaints Authorities and Legal Services Authorities, depending upon the nature of the grievance and the applicable jurisdiction.
Such institutions are particularly relevant where allegations concern police misconduct, custodial violence, human rights violations or denial of legal assistance.
Legal Services Authorities also play an important role in reducing the financial barrier to accessing legal representation.
However, the existence of multiple institutions can itself create confusion.
A family may ask:
- Should we approach the police?
- The Superintendent of Police?
- The Magistrate?
- The High Court?
- The Human Rights Commission?
- The Legal Services Authority?
- The Police Complaints Authority?
When a person has to navigate several institutions simply to determine where a complaint belongs, the grievance-redressal structure becomes difficult to understand.
7. Why Do Families Turn to Protest?
If formal mechanisms exist, why do families sometimes protest?
There can be several reasons.
First, a protest provides visibility. A written complaint may remain within an institution, whereas a public demonstration can attract attention from journalists, civil society and political representatives.
Second, protest can create a sense of collective support. A family that feels isolated within the legal system may find solidarity by bringing its grievance into the public sphere.
Third, public attention can sometimes lead to questions being asked about the progress of a case. This does not mean that public pressure legally determines the outcome of a criminal investigation or trial. Rather, it can affect the visibility of an already existing grievance.
Fourth, families may protest because they believe that earlier formal approaches have not produced an adequate response.
This creates an important distinction:
Protest may be a lawful democratic method of expressing a grievance, but it should not become a substitute for functioning grievance-redressal institutions.
8. The Constitutional Dimension
The right to protest peacefully is connected with the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions.
At the same time, families approaching public authorities are exercising their broader interest in accessing justice and seeking protection of legal and fundamental rights.
Article 21 has acquired a broad meaning through constitutional jurisprudence and includes important procedural protections concerning life and personal liberty.
The constitutional framework therefore creates two parallel ideas.
One is the right of citizens to express dissatisfaction and demand accountability.
The other is the responsibility of State institutions to function fairly, lawfully and effectively.
A healthy constitutional democracy requires both.
The answer to institutional failure cannot simply be that citizens should protest more. Equally, protest should not be treated as evidence that a particular family is automatically legally correct. Public pressure and legal proof are different things.
The courts ultimately determine legal rights and liabilities according to law and evidence.
9. The Risk of a “Visibility-Based” Justice System
One of the deeper concerns is the possibility of creating what may be called a visibility-based justice system.
If a grievance receives immediate institutional attention only after it becomes prominent on social media or in the news, citizens with fewer resources or less public visibility may be placed at a disadvantage.
Two families could face similar grievances but experience very different institutional responses depending upon their ability to attract public attention.
This would raise concerns about equality in access to justice.
The legal system should not function on the principle that:
the louder the grievance, the faster the response.
Instead, the strength of the legal grievance and the applicable law should determine institutional action.
A complaint supported by law and evidence should not require public pressure to become worthy of consideration.
10. What Can Be Improved?
The solution is not to discourage lawful protest. Rather, the objective should be to make formal grievance mechanisms sufficiently effective that protest remains a right of democratic expression, rather than becoming a perceived necessity for obtaining basic institutional attention.
Several reforms can help.
First, simpler grievance procedures
Police and other institutions should clearly explain escalation mechanisms to complainants.
Second, acknowledgement and tracking
Complaints should receive an acknowledgement and, where appropriate, a trackable reference number so that families can determine what happened to their complaint.
Third, better communication
Families should receive basic information about the procedural status of matters where disclosure is legally permissible.
Fourth, stronger legal-aid awareness
People should be informed about the availability of legal aid and the institutions through which it can be obtained.
Fifth, independent complaint mechanisms
Where the grievance concerns police misconduct, mechanisms independent of the concerned officer or unit become particularly important.
Sixth, institutional accountability
Where a complaint is deliberately ignored or unlawfully delayed, appropriate accountability mechanisms should be capable of functioning without requiring media attention.
Conclusion
The question “Do families need to protest to be heard?” is ultimately a question about the relationship between citizens and institutions.
Families have the constitutional right to peacefully express their grievances. Protest can play an important role in a democracy by bringing public attention to issues that citizens believe have been overlooked. But public protest should remain a democratic choice, not become an unofficial requirement for accessing justice.
India already has multiple channels through which grievances can be raised—police authorities, Magistrates, courts, prosecutors, legal services institutions and oversight bodies. The challenge is to ensure that these mechanisms are not merely available on paper but are understandable, accessible and responsive in practice.
A justice system should not require a family to become publicly visible before it becomes institutionally visible.
The ultimate measure of an effective grievance-redressal system is therefore not how quickly it responds to the loudest protest, but whether it can hear the quiet complaint with the same seriousness.
Justice should not depend upon how much noise a family can make. It should depend upon the law.
Author: DURVA AWHAD
A BA. LLB student with a knee interest in legal research and creative writing