A recent viewing of 'The Greatest Comeback Ever' by Samay Raina leaves behind an unexpected reflection—not about comeback, but about attention. What society chooses to amplify, what it ignores, and how quickly it moves on. In contemporary India, attention does not merely shape discourse; it increasingly determines outcomes, including the delivery of justice.
A troubling pattern repeats itself with unsettling regularity. A serious crime occurs, public outrage follows, and for a brief period, it dominates the national conversation. Yet, just as quickly, attention fades. The outrage subsides, and the issue recedes—often without meaningful resolution. This cycle has become so predictable that it risks normalising not just the crime, but also the institutional inertia that follows.
The scale of the problem is evident in official data. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, India recorded over 4.48 lakh crimes against women in 2023, including nearly 29,000 rape cases. These are not isolated incidents—they reflect a systemic challenge. Yet, what remains equally concerning is not just the volume of cases, but the uneven pace at which justice is delivered.
Delays, inconsistencies, and pendency continue to define the justice process. Court data shows that over 90% of cases related to crimes against women remain pending trial, highlighting the scale of institutional backlog. At the same time, conviction rates fluctuate, and in some regions have even declined, raising concerns about the quality of investigation and prosecution. The issue, therefore, is not merely the absence of legal frameworks, but the inconsistency in their application.
The contrast becomes particularly stark when cases involve individuals with influence. In such instances, institutional response often appears swift and decisive. Complaints are registered without delay, investigations gain momentum, and accountability mechanisms activate with noticeable efficiency. This divergence raises a fundamental question: if the system is capable of functioning effectively under certain conditions, why does it fail to do so universally?The answer lies in what may be described as "selective urgency". Institutional responsiveness appears to correlate not only with the severity of the crime, but with the visibility it commands. Cases that receive sustained media attention and public pressure often move faster, while others equally serious struggle to gain traction.
This phenomenon is not without precedent. The nationwide protests following the Nirbhaya case demonstrated how sustained public outrage can compel institutional action and lead to legal reform. However, it also revealed an uncomfortable truth—justice often accelerates only when visibility reaches a critical threshold.Such a dynamic creates an uneven landscape where attention itself becomes a determining factor in justice. It introduces an implicit hierarchy, where cases that trend receive priority, while others risk fading into obscurity. Over time, this not only distorts institutional priorities but also reshapes public expectations, conditioning society to respond intensely, but briefly.
Equally concerning is the gradual erosion of societal sensitivity. Repeated exposure to such incidents, followed by predictable cycles of outrage and inaction, risks desensitising the public. When shock diminishes, so does the collective demand for accountability. The danger, therefore, extends beyond individual cases—it lies in the normalisation of both violence and indifference.
Addressing this issue does not necessarily require the creation of new laws. India’s legal framework, in many respects, is already comprehensive. The challenge lies in ensuring consistent enforcement, institutional accountability, and timely delivery of justice irrespective of visibility or influence. Without this, even the most robust legal provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Ultimately, the question is not whether the system can deliver justice, but whether it chooses to do so equally. When urgency becomes selective and attention dictates action, justice risks transforming from a fundamental right into a conditional outcome. That, more than anything else, reflects a deeper structural imbalance—one that demands not just awareness, but sustained and equal accountability.
