Prevention an integral part of ‘zero tolerance against crime’

“Zero tolerance should not be confined to criminals alone. It should also extend to public officials whose negligence, inaction or failure to perform their duties creates conditions that allow crime to flourish”

(Drop Cap)

“Zero tolerance against crime” has become a popular slogan in contemporary policing across the country. Citizens naturally expect the state to act firmly against criminals and ensure that law and order is maintained. No civilized society can function if criminals operate with impunity. Crime must be prevented wherever possible, and when prevention fails, offenders must be apprehended, prosecuted professionally and punished according to law. In this sense, zero tolerance against crime is a legitimate and desirable objective.

However, the policy of zero tolerance requires a much wider interpretation than merely arresting criminals, conducting police operations, or demolishing their properties after the event. A truly effective policy must encompass the entire chain of criminal justice and governance, beginning long before a crime is committed.

Crime prevention is the first and most important component of zero tolerance. If intelligence gathering, surveillance of habitual offenders, enforcement of preventive laws and coordination between police and civil administration are functioning effectively, many crimes can be stopped before they occur. Once a crime has been committed, the focus shifts to prompt arrest, scientific investigation, collection of evidence, professional prosecution and successful conviction. The process must conclude logically and lawfully.

Yet there is another dimension that is often ignored. Zero tolerance should not be confined to criminals alone. It should also extend to public officials whose negligence, inaction or failure to perform their duties creates conditions that allow crime to flourish.

The recent Ghaziabad case involving Asad, accused of the murder of Surya, raises important questions in this regard. Following the incident and the subsequent death of the accused in a police encounter, attention shifted to the legality of his residence. Notices were reportedly served stating that the house stood on illegally occupied land and would be demolished if not vacated within fifteen days.

This naturally prompts a fundamental question: if the occupation of land was illegal, why was action not initiated earlier? If the violation was known to the authorities, why did the civil administration wait until after a sensational crime and the death of the accused to invoke the law? If it was not known, does that not point to a failure of local governance and regulatory oversight?

The issue is not about defending a criminal. A person accused of a heinous crime deserves no sympathy for unlawful acts. The issue is about consistency in governance. The law should not become active only after public outrage erupts or media attention intensifies. The rule of law demands timely and impartial enforcement, irrespective of whether the violator is a notorious criminal or an ordinary citizen.

A broader philosophy of zero tolerance would require accountability from every institution involved. Police officers must be answerable for failures in preventive policing. Revenue and municipal authorities must explain why illegal constructions, encroachments or other violations remained unchecked. Local intelligence mechanisms must be examined to determine whether warning signs were ignored. Administrative indifference should not escape scrutiny simply because the spotlight is focused on the criminal.

In fact, many serious crimes are preceded by a series of smaller violations that go unaddressed. Illegal occupations, habitual misconduct, intimidation of local residents and repeated law-breaking often create an environment in which more serious crimes eventually occur. When authorities ignore these early indicators, they inadvertently contribute to the conditions that enable criminality.

Therefore, the real test of zero tolerance is not how forcefully the state reacts after a crime. The real test lies in how effectively it prevents crime, how professionally it investigates offences, how successfully it secures convictions and how honestly it evaluates the conduct of its own officials.

A mature democracy governed by the rule of law cannot be satisfied merely with encounters, demolitions or post-crime symbolism. True zero tolerance means zero tolerance for crime, zero tolerance for administrative negligence, and zero tolerance for institutional failures that allow criminal behaviour to mature unchecked. Only then can the slogan evolve into a comprehensive governance philosophy capable of delivering lasting public safety and justice.

(Writer is a former DGP of UP and one of the architects of UP police commissionerate system)