बेबाक · Editorial
Neither absent nor arbitrary: a fire, a slap and a summons test the rule of law
The rule of law fails in both directions — when the state is absent and citizens turn to private force, and when it acts as spectacle rather than fair, reviewable process.
Four scenes, one fracture
Read together, four recent episodes describe a single fracture in the rule of law. In Delhi's Tughlakabad, a residential building was set ablaze on purpose over an alleged ₹50,000 debt, with three adults arrested and a teenager apprehended. In Jaipur, Abhijeet Dipke, founder of CJP, was manhandled and slapped at a protest, two youths detained, and the accused then beaten by his supporters before police intervened. The Enforcement Directorate questioned a sitting Member of Parliament in the primary school jobs case. At Delhi airport, Rahman, an adviser to the Bangladesh Prime Minister, was held for more than two hours and, though cleared to enter, turned back saying he had been humiliated. The thread is not crime alone, but whether the citizen meets the state as fair process or as arbitrary power.
A two-way compact
The rule of law is a compact that can break from either end. A constitutional order rests on the state holding a monopoly on legitimate force, exercised through known procedure. That monopoly fails when the state is absent — when a creditor believes fire will recover ₹50,000 faster than lawful remedy, or a crowd appoints itself judge before police can secure order. It fails equally when the state is present but arbitrary — when process appears punitive, scrutiny becomes humiliation, and enforcement arrives as spectacle. Both failures end in the same place: the citizen concludes that outcomes turn on who is angrier, richer or better organised on the day, not on what the law says. That is the erosion this newspaper watches.
Firmness and its limits
Honesty requires each side at its strongest. The case for a firm state is real. Alleged wrongdoing in public hiring is not a minor matter, and the primary school jobs case demands rigorous investigation. Arson over a private debt endangers everyone asleep in the building; street assault cannot be normalised as protest. The state that does nothing fails the weak first. Yet firmness is not licence. The same authority that arrests must shield the accused from retaliatory beating, explain a detention of more than two hours, and keep procedure above anger. Lengthy questioning, or a demolition drive measured in hundreds of properties, must remain accountable process, not justice performed for display.
What the record shows
The specifics, drawn from the source pack, are sobering. The Enforcement Directorate questioned a Member of Parliament in the primary school jobs case a day after another Member of Parliament was questioned for nearly eight-and-a-half hours. In Tughlakabad, police linked a building fire to an alleged ₹50,000 debt, arresting three adults and apprehending a teenager, while CCTV outside a residence captured a woman entering the building before the blaze. In Jaipur, two youths were detained after CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was assaulted, and his supporters beat the accused before police intervened. In Delhi, the civic body reports 217 demolitions, 237 properties sealed, 330 show-cause notices for unauthorised construction, 151 sealing show-cause notices and 91 demolition orders. These are documented events, not rumour — institutions tested in full public view.
The verdict
The verdict is concern, not alarm. No single fire, slap, summons or sealing threatens the republic. A settled habit does — the habit of citizens deciding that violence is quicker than law, and of institutions answering disorder with spectacle rather than process. India cannot afford a weak state that lets alleged corruption, arson and assault pass as routine. Nor can it afford a theatrical one that mistakes prolonged questioning, a detention experienced as humiliation or a mass demolition for justice done. The state's oldest duty is neither growth nor grandeur; it is to be the sole, predictable, even-handed arbiter of force, so the smallest citizen need not fear the strongest, and no one need become strong merely to be safe. That promise is withdrawn quietly, which is why it is easy to ignore.
The way forward
Repair is mundane work, not grand reform. Small claims like the ₹50,000 quarrel belong in fast, accessible legal forums that settle modest disputes quickly, so no creditor imagines fire is quicker. Protest must be policed to protect the protester first, and retaliatory mobs treated as firmly as the original assailant. Investigative agencies, the Enforcement Directorate among them, should work to fair and time-bound protocols that yield reviewable outcomes, not open-ended spectacle. The civic body must pair action against unauthorised construction with consistent, proactive oversight that stops illegality taking root. And airport authorities should review the Delhi airport record in Rahman's case, separating lawful scrutiny from avoidable indignity. A confident state needs no rudeness to prove its vigilance.
The state must be present enough that no citizen reaches for fire, and lawful enough that its own force is never mistaken for it.
At stake is whether equality, speech, voting power and electoral neutrality are protected by fair, non-arbitrary state process.
Public Power Reasons Act
Parliament should enact a Public Power Reasons Act requiring police, enforcement, immigration and civic authorities to record and disclose the legal basis, time log, officer authority and review route for summons, detentions, demolitions and protest-related action. Any detention beyond two hours, coercive questioning of an elected representative, or crowd-control failure involving assault should trigger a time-bound independent review and a reasoned response accessible under RTI.
Your Constitutional Rights
What the Constitution guarantees in this storySuperintendence, direction and control of elections vests in an independent Election Commission of India.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen aged 18 or above has the right to vote, regardless of wealth, status, gender or education.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression — including a free press and the right to know — subject only to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
Fundamental RightThe State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
Join the movement
One fearless editorial at a time — in your language. Plus the constitutional Ask that must follow.
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →