Institutional Accountability

The first point of contact for survivors, yet frequently the site of secondary trauma and procedural obstruction.

• —Systemic delays and outright refusals in FIR registration, particularly affecting marginalized communities.
• —High risk of evidence tampering, loss of chain of custody, and mishandling of crime scenes.
• —Chronic failure to provide mandated victim protection, leading to witness intimidation.
• —Undue political interference and pressure to downgrade or close high-profile investigations.

The regulatory bodies responsible for public and interstate transit safety, repeatedly failing to enforce their own mandates.

• —Mandated in-vehicle CCTV and panic buttons are frequently non-functional, disconnected, or lack monitored feeds.
• —Lax or nonexistent driver background verification processes for app-based and interstate operators.
• —Poor interstate jurisdictional coordination, allowing offending vehicles to cross state lines unchecked.
• —Weak enforcement of operator compliance, with penalties rarely applied despite repeated violations.

The executive branch responsible for funding, oversight, and legislative action, often characterized by performative rather than substantive reform.

• —Chronic under-utilization of dedicated safety funds (e.g., the Nirbhaya Fund), with money remaining unspent in state treasuries.
• —Delayed or diluted legislative action on critical committee reports (e.g., Justice Verma Committee).
• —Lack of independent, civilian-led oversight mechanisms to investigate state or police failures.
• —The politicization of survivor narratives, with officials frequently questioning victim credibility before trials conclude.

The final arbiter of justice, where systemic bottlenecks and archaic practices often deny survivors timely resolution.

• —Severe trial pendency, with sexual offence cases routinely taking 5 to 10+ years to reach a verdict.
• —High rates of witness hostility, exacerbated by a lack of robust, enforced witness protection programs.
• —Inconsistent and often disproportionately lenient sentencing in sexual offence cases by lower courts.
• —Archaic evidentiary standards that place an undue burden of proof and character scrutiny on survivors.