Justice cannot be Weaponised

Recently, the Supreme Court of India issued a stern warning against the increasing trend of converting civil disputes into criminal cases, often to exert pressure or gain an unfair advantage, reaffirming the fundamental principle that the law exists to protect rights and ensure justice to the people and not to be applied as a tool of harassment, intimidation or personal revenge.

The warning echoes an age-old concern in jurisprudence that justice, when used as a weapon rather than a shield, corrodes the very social contract it is meant to uphold. Across democracies, courts have had to remind litigants that law is not an instrument of vengeance but a means to restore order and balance.

Civil disagreements, particularly over money or property, are increasingly being shrouded in criminal allegations. FIRs are frequently lodged for offences such as cheating, even when the underlying matter is purely civil, with police registering complaints without preliminary investigation. Such criminalisation of private disputes transforms negotiation into intimidation, and the police into unwilling participants in private feuds.

While Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973 (Section 173 of BNSS, 2023) and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS. [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 permits FIRs for cognizable offences, police officers wary of accusations of negligence or bias, often register cases first and then leave to the courts to decide about the criminality thus inadvertently creating a parallel ecosystem of criminal proceedings along with the ongoing civil proceedings. Influential complainants exploit this loophole to intimidate or coerce the opposite party, while police officials at the ground level comply to avoid repercussions like disciplinary actions. The practice is prevalent in such a manner that the aggrieved parties have to knock the doors of the apex court for redressal.

In effect, a culture of defensive policing has taken root. Much like in America, where prosecutors sometimes ‘overcharge’ defendants to secure plea bargains, Indian police often ‘over-register’ complaints to pre-empt allegations of dereliction. The outcome is a flood of FIRs, many of dubious merit, that clog the judicial pipeline. The targets of such complaints, meanwhile must wage prolonged legal battles simply to have their names cleared. Justice delayed in such circumstances becomes justice denied.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again intervened in such matters that burdens the Court but are actually avoidable litigations by quashing FIRs and directing that the Hon’ble High Courts under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC, 1973 (Section 528, BNSS 2023) can quash criminal proceedings when civil remedies are already being pursued, criminal proceedings cannot be utilized for arm twisting and substitute civil litigation. Misusing the criminal justice system to settle personal scores undermines its very fundamentals and threatens the very balance of separation of civil and criminal law.

The Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions reveal another uncomfortable truth which is that too many lower courts and police officials are complicit in sustaining this misuse. Despite judicial guidelines, the machinery of justice often bends to social power, money or political pressure. When the criminal process becomes a bargaining chip, the line between the complainant and the persecutor blurs.

The SC’s warning serves as a timely reminder that criminal law should address genuine wrongdoing, not serve as a guillotine to extract settlements or expedite proceedings quickly. Upholding this distinction is crucial to preserving the integrity of the legal system and protecting citizens from misuse of the law.

Historically, democracies have faltered when the coercive power of the state through its police, prosecutors or courts, has been hijacked for private ends. As the great 18th century judge-political philosopher Montesquieu warned in his classic treatise ‘The Spirit of Law’ (De l’esprit des lois), “there is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” India, a democracy governed by an intricate web of statutory and constitutional safeguards, must take that warning seriously.

The challenge before us is not merely procedural but philosophical. When civil disputes are criminalised, the spirit of compromise, which is the lifeblood of civil law, dies.

The Supreme Court’s intervention therefore reasserts the moral hierarchy of the law. In reaffirming the boundaries between civil and criminal law, India’s judiciary is in effect defending the very architecture of its democracy. Justice must serve as a balm, not a bludgeon. The rule of law cannot endure if it becomes a means to personal ends.

(The writer is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. Views personal.)