How Law Is Sometimes Applied Unevenly in India

The Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law in Article 14 and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in Article 15. These guarantees are real, justiciable, and enforced by courts that have struck down discriminatory laws and arbitrary official action. But the experience of law in India is systematically uneven by social position, economic standing, and political connection. This has evolved into a pattern so consistent that it constitutes not a series of aberrations but a structural feature of how the legal system functions. 

The NCRB Prison Statistics 2023 shows that Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs together constitute approximately 69.3% of India's prison population while comprising roughly the same share of the general population. This is a figure that is either an accidental statistical outcome or the product of differential policing, differential bail access, and differential legal representation. Academic research from the American Political Science Review (2023) found empirical evidence of caste-class bias in how Indian law enforcement officers treat suspects based on perceived social status.

Representational Image: How Law Is Sometimes Applied Unevenly in India

Understanding this unevenness requires distinguishing between two levels of the legal system. The formal level — law as written, courts as constituted, constitutional rights as guaranteed — is substantially egalitarian. Courts do not have separate facilities for Dalits and Brahmins. The penal code does not specify different sentences for different castes. Judges apply the same evidentiary rules to all parties. The gap is at the operational level: who gets arrested and who doesn't; whose FIR the police register and whose they don't; who can afford bail and who cannot; whose lawyer knows the judge and whose does not; which community's violent act becomes a registered case and which community's act is mediated informally. This operational unevenness is where India's constitutional equality promise meets the reality of how institutions function in a society stratified by caste, class, and political patronage.

What the Evidence Shows

• NCRB Prison Statistics 2023 shows that undertrial prisoners belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes together constitute approximately 69.3% of India's prison population; undertrial prisoners are 76.2% of total prison inmates; approximately one-third of undertrials have already served more than a year without conviction.
• Academic research published in the American Political Science Review (2023) — "Evidence of Caste-Class Discrimination from a Conjoint Analysis of Law Enforcement Officers" — found empirical evidence that police officers treat suspects differently based on perceived caste and class status, with lower-status individuals more likely to be perceived as guilty and treated with less process.
• Human Rights Watch's report "Hidden Apartheid" documented that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — which criminalises caste-based violence and social discrimination — is systematically under-enforced; studies show low registration, investigation, and conviction rates for cases under this Act.
• DAKSH research cited in the Supreme Court backlog analysis found that cases involving wealthy or politically connected parties can be expedited through court system connections; former Bombay High Court judge Gautam Patel noted that those with resources can "expedite or delay cases at will" while others wait decades.
• The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 ranks India at 114/143 on civil justice — reflecting not just backlog but impartial access and equal treatment, where India scores significantly lower than its formal legal architecture would suggest.

How It Works in Practice

1. The FIR registration gap: The First Information Report — the formal registration of a criminal complaint by police — is the gateway to the criminal justice system. Police have discretion in registering FIRs, particularly in cognisable offences. Research and media documentation show that FIRs are registered far more readily against lower-caste, lower-class, and socially marginalised complainants as suspects, while FIR registration is more difficult for lower-status complainants against higher-status accused. The Supreme Court has repeatedly directed police to register FIRs without delay, but implementation is uneven.

2. Bail as a class divider: India's bail system requires sureties — persons who guarantee the accused's appearance. Those without property or socially connected guarantors cannot post bail and remain in custody even for bailable offences. The cash bail mechanism disproportionately affects the poor: 49% of India's undertrials are aged 18–30, and nearly two in three are below matriculation education — a profile that correlates with limited access to bail bonds. A constitutional right to bail in bailable offences does not translate into practical release for those who cannot produce sureties.

3. Legal representation inequality: Free legal aid is a constitutional right and NALSA provides it under the Legal Services Authorities Act. In practice, legal aid quality varies enormously; UTRC (Undertrial Review Committee) data for April 2025 cited in IndiaSpend shows that 56% of prisoners recommended for release were represented by private lawyers — meaning even among those eligible for release, a significant share relied on legal aid of variable quality. Private representation provides substantial advantages in procedural knowledge, court relationships, and application quality.

4. Atrocities Act under-enforcement: The SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is designed to address the documented pattern of caste-based violence, forced labour, and social exclusion. HRW and domestic civil society documentation show: low FIR registration for atrocity complaints; high acquittal rates; and inadequate witness protection. Police — who are themselves embedded in local caste hierarchies — are often the first point of failure in atrocities enforcement.

5. Political connection and legal immunity: India's documented pattern of "encounter killings" — extra-judicial killings by police presented as encounters — disproportionately affects marginalised communities. The Supreme Court's 2016 Manipur encounter case directions for CBI investigation illustrate both that such killings occur and that judicial intervention is required to investigate them. Conversely, individuals with political connections, ministerial positions, or economic power are documented to receive more responsive police attention, faster court attention, and better access to anticipatory bail.

What People Often Misunderstand

• This is not a bug but a system feature: The uneven application of law in India is not incidental or accidental — it reflects the fact that law enforcement institutions are staffed by, embedded in, and responsive to the same social hierarchies that structure the rest of Indian society; formal equality in text does not override informal inequality in institutional culture.
• Constitutional remedies exist but are not equally accessible: Article 14 and Article 21 provide real remedies for those who can access courts and afford or obtain lawyers; their availability to marginalised communities is structurally limited by the same inequalities the rights are designed to address.
• Reservations in the legal system have not equalised outcomes: Despite SC/ST reservations in government employment, including police and judiciary, representation does not guarantee equitable functioning; the culture of institutions can be slower to change than their composition.
• Class and caste interact but are not identical: Upper-caste individuals with limited means may face more process disadvantages than lower-caste individuals with wealth and political connections; the inequality is multidimensional, not a simple caste hierarchy.
• Reform efforts are ongoing: The National Legal Services Authority, the Undertrial Review Committee mechanism, the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Right to Education Act, and the three new criminal codes all represent attempts to address specific aspects of legal inequality; the effectiveness of these reforms is a matter of ongoing monitoring and documentation.

What Changes Over Time

The three new criminal codes (BNS, BNSS, BSA, effective July 2024) include provisions explicitly aimed at reducing unnecessary arrest, improving FIR registration compliance, and strengthening legal aid — directly addressing some documented sources of inequality. NALSA's district-level legal aid clinics and UTRC mechanisms for undertrial release represent institutional infrastructure for reducing the bail inequality gap. NCRB publication of prison demographic data has enabled civil society analysis that makes the structural pattern visible — a precondition for any systematic reform response.

Sources and Further Reading

• NCRB — Prison Statistics India 2023: https://www.ncrb.gov.in/en/prison-statistics-india
• American Political Science Review (2023) — Evidence of Caste-Class Discrimination: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/evidence-of-casteclass-discrimination-from-a-conjoint-analysis-of-law-enforcement-officers/843DB54EB8D1C0F2FD909C54977960BC
• IndiaSpend — Half a million Indians behind bars: https://www.indiaspend.com/governance/half-a-million-indians-behind-bars-74-still-awaiting-trial-968804
• Human Rights Watch — Hidden Apartheid: https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/02/12/hidden-apartheid/caste-discrimination-against-indias-untouchables
• World Justice Project — Rule of Law Index 2025: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/

(This series is part of a long-term editorial project to explain the structures, institutions, contradictions, and operating logic of constitutional governance, courts, and the rule of law in India for a global audience. Designed as a 25-article briefing cluster on the Constitution, Courts & Rule of Law in India, this vertical examines how constitutional power functions in practice — from judicial review, Public Interest Litigation, constitutional amendments, and High Courts to pendency, compliance gaps, constitutional morality, and the everyday operation of India’s justice system. Written in accessible format for diplomats, investors, researchers, NGOs, civil society actors, students, academics, policymakers, and international observers, the series seeks to explain both how India’s constitutional and judicial architecture is designed to function on paper and how the rule of law actually operates on the ground. This is Vertical 3 of a larger 20-vertical knowledge architecture being developed by IndianRepublic.in under the editorial direction of Saket Suman. All articles are protected under applicable copyright laws. All Rights Reserved.)