Duty of Executory: To Solve Crimes or To Collect Fines? A Critical Examination in the Context of India

In any society, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the state and its authorities is the administration of justice. The police, judiciary, and other law enforcement bodies are entrusted with various duties to ensure peace, order, and the protection of citizens' rights. However, a significant question arises when we consider the role of these bodies: are they primarily tasked with solving crimes, or is their role more focused on generating revenue through fines? This article seeks to explore this question, with specific reference to India, where the issue of law enforcement priorities is a topic of debate.

The State's Responsibility: Crime Prevention vs. Revenue Generation

In India, the police and other law enforcement agencies are primarily tasked with preventing crime, solving criminal cases, and maintaining law and order. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various other legal provisions outline the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement agencies. These duties are rooted in the concept of justice, where the state seeks to ensure that offenders are held accountable, and victims receive justice.
However, in practice, a growing concern is that in certain instances, law enforcement agencies prioritize revenue generation over actual crime prevention. This can be seen in various forms such as ticketing for traffic violations, collection of fines for petty crimes, and even imposing economic penalties in the form of bribes.

The Role of the Police: Crime Investigation vs. Fines Collection

The Indian police force, as enshrined under the Police Act of 1861 and its subsequent amendments, is mandated to prevent and investigate crimes, maintain law and order, and ensure the safety and security of citizens. The focus of the police should, ideally, be on crime prevention, detection, and justice delivery. However, a variety of factors such as limited resources, outdated systems, political pressure, and corruption have led to a shift in the role of law enforcement officers. As a result, there have been instances where police officers are more focused on collecting fines, especially in areas like traffic management, than solving serious crimes.

For example, the traffic police in major Indian cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalore often emphasize the collection of fines for traffic violations. While maintaining road discipline and ensuring the safety of road users is an important aspect of their duty, the sheer focus on fines collection has led to criticism. Many argue that the police, in their zeal to meet revenue targets, often overlook the bigger task of addressing criminal activity or ensuring long-term safety solutions like proper infrastructure, driver education, or traffic reforms.

One such case that drew widespread attention was the tragic incident in 2016 in Bengaluru, where a young woman was killed in a hit-and-run accident. The accused driver was apprehended only after extensive investigation. Critics pointed out that, in a city notorious for its traffic violations, the focus on fines did not translate into the prevention of severe road accidents or enhanced safety measures. The case illustrated how traffic enforcement could sometimes become more about collecting fines rather than tackling the root causes of crime, such as inadequate infrastructure or reckless driving.

Commercialization of Law Enforcement: An Alarming Trend

The commercialization of law enforcement, particularly through fines and penalties, is a growing concern in India. The tendency of some authorities to treat fines as a revenue-generating tool rather than a deterrent against violations has come under scrutiny. In many cases, law enforcement agencies, including the police, have been accused of prioritizing fines over effective crime-solving strategies.

Take, for example, the fines imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act. While the Act is essential for regulating road safety, the enforcement of traffic laws sometimes seems to be driven by a desire to meet revenue targets. The imposition of fines for minor offenses, such as jaywalking, incorrect parking, or minor violations, is frequently seen as a way to extract money from the public rather than solving issues related to road safety or criminal behavior.

Another example can be seen in the context of the city of Delhi, where the Delhi Police and the Traffic Police are often involved in collecting fines for violations like illegal parking or speeding. While these fines might seem necessary for maintaining order on the roads, questions are raised about whether the fines are used to fund the development of better traffic management or merely contribute to an inefficient system that fails to prevent major accidents or crimes.

In such cases, the law enforcement system shifts focus from the larger objective of crime prevention and justice to the immediate collection of fines. This creates a situation where the police are seen as "collectors" rather than "protectors" of the public. Consequently, citizens often feel a disconnect between the police and their role as law enforcers who are expected to solve crimes and ensure public safety.

A Broader Perspective: The Dangers of Fines as a Revenue-Generation Tool
While fines and penalties are certainly important for maintaining public order, the over-reliance on fines for revenue generation can undermine the broader objectives of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement agencies that focus disproportionately on collecting fines often neglect their core functions, such as investigating crimes, protecting vulnerable communities, and improving the quality of life for citizens.

This issue is particularly pressing in the case of small-scale and petty crimes, where there is often a temptation for law enforcement agencies to prioritize fines. For instance, in the case of public nuisance offenses, such as noise pollution or littering, the tendency to issue fines is sometimes seen as a way to deal with the problem quickly and efficiently. However, these offenses rarely lead to investigations that could uncover larger criminal activities or help in crime prevention.

Moreover, fines are often seen as a "quick fix" solution to complex social and criminal problems. For instance, the imposition of fines for illegal street vending or hawking is a common practice in Indian cities. While it addresses the issue of encroachments, it does not solve the underlying problem of inadequate public spaces, lack of employment opportunities, or poverty. This creates a cycle of fine collection without addressing the root causes of the issue.

Furthermore, the reliance on fines as a tool for law enforcement also has implications for marginalized communities. Poor individuals, who may already be living in poverty, are often disproportionately impacted by the imposition of fines. Instead of investing in addressing structural issues or improving public welfare, law enforcement agencies sometimes exacerbate inequality by making fines the primary means of enforcement.

The Need for a Balanced Approach: Crime Solving and Public Welfare

In light of these concerns, it is crucial to strike a balance between crime prevention, justice, and the collection of fines. Law enforcement agencies must be encouraged to focus on long-term solutions that prevent crime, rather than relying on fines as a quick fix.

One way to address this imbalance is by introducing reforms in the way fines are implemented and ensuring that they serve as effective deterrents rather than as revenue-generation mechanisms. Fines should be carefully calibrated to ensure that they do not disproportionately affect marginalized sections of society and that they are used to fund public services that benefit the community.

In addition, law enforcement agencies should prioritize the investigation and resolution of serious crimes, such as murders, thefts, and fraud, over minor infractions. While enforcement of traffic laws and petty offenses is important, the core mission of law enforcement should always be crime prevention and justice.

Moreover, there is a need for systemic reforms that enable law enforcement agencies to engage in proactive crime prevention rather than reactive measures. This could involve better training for police officers, improved technological infrastructure for crime tracking, and a more transparent and accountable system of policing.

Case Study: The Delhi Police and the Focus on Fines

A notable example of this issue can be seen in the practices of the Delhi Police. In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion about the growing focus on fines for traffic violations and petty crimes. The Delhi Traffic Police, under the leadership of various police commissioners, has focused on increasing the number of fines imposed on offenders to fund better infrastructure, including cameras, traffic lights, and other monitoring systems.

While these initiatives have resulted in some improvements in traffic management, critics argue that the focus on fines has come at the expense of solving more serious crimes, such as robbery, assault, and cybercrimes. In fact, many residents of Delhi have raised concerns about the inefficacy of the police force in solving these serious crimes, despite the increase in fines for minor infractions.

Conclusion
The debate over the duty of executory—whether it is to solve crimes or to collect fines—is a complex and multifaceted issue in India. While fines can certainly serve as a deterrent and a means of maintaining order, they should not overshadow the primary objective of law enforcement: the prevention of crime and the delivery of justice. In India, a balanced approach is needed, where law enforcement agencies focus on the prevention and resolution of serious crimes, while also ensuring that fines are implemented fairly and equitably. Only through such an approach can the true purpose of law enforcement be realized: the protection of public safety, the delivery of justice, and the maintenance of social order.