बेबाक · Editorial
The Law's Long Arm, and the Test of Its Even Reach
From anticipatory bail in a corruption probe to a life sentence for a riot killing, the week's docket asks whether justice reaches every citizen at the same pace.
A crowded docket
In a single week the courts occupied the centre of national life. The Supreme Court granted interim anticipatory bail in the TASMAC corruption case, staying arrest subject to conditions and directing cooperation with the investigation. A Delhi court sentenced a former councillor and four others to life imprisonment for the 2020 killing of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma. In Kerala, a Special Investigation Team detained former Travancore Devaswom Board president P.S. Prasanth for questioning in the Sabarimala gold theft case, nearly three weeks after questioning Unnikrishnan Potti, the prime accused. Each is distinct in facts, yet together they pose one question: does the rule of law reach every citizen, from the influential accused to the ordinary citizen, with the same steadiness?
Liberty and its price
The apex court offered a principle worth weighing. Hearing a separate matter, it observed that cryptic bail orders need not be revisited, since the liberty of a person does not depend on the inaccuracy of a court but on the strength of the prosecution's case. That is a liberty-protecting instinct. But the same principle, honestly applied, cuts both ways. If a thin prosecution cannot justify detention for the anonymous accused, neither should office, wealth or political weight secure early relief for the influential. Liberty guarded selectively is not liberty; it is privilege wearing the robes of law.
Steel-manning both sides
The case for restraint is real. Anticipatory bail protects against vindictive arrest, and investigations can be misused; a court that presumes innocence and demands evidence before depriving anyone of freedom is doing its job. The competing anxiety is equally real. When the accused hold or held public positions—a political leader in the TASMAC corruption case, P.S. Prasanth in the Sabarimala gold theft case—the public reasonably asks whether the machinery moves at the same pace for them as for the powerless. Both concerns are legitimate. The answer is not to lower the shield of due process, but to raise it uniformly for the powerful and powerless alike.
The evidence of the week
The concrete record is instructive. The Delhi court's life sentence recorded that Ankit Sharma was lynched solely on account of his religious identity, a finding that names the crime plainly and refuses communal alibi. The Sabarimala SIT moved hours after P.S. Prasanth posted on Facebook that his arrest in the case was imminent. In Meghalaya, the High Court expressed serious concern over the alleged assault and parading of an advocate by non-state actors. The Allahabad High Court asked that two adult sisters, who said through counsel they had converted voluntarily without pressure, force or inducement, be brought before it. Institutions, when they act, leave a documented trail.
The standard to hold
The measure of these cases is consistency. A court that grants bail on the frailty of the prosecution must apply that same test whether the accused is powerful or powerless. An investigating agency that detains a former Travancore Devaswom Board president must show equal urgency for the anonymous complainant. A police force that lets non-state actors parade an accused betrays the first duty of the state. A constitutional court that insists two adult women be heard affirms that autonomy must not be drowned by public pressure. When a Delhi court convicts for a targeted killing, it affirms that no faith is a lawful reason to die. These are not competing values but one value, tested repeatedly.
The way forward
Let the principle the Supreme Court articulated become the working rule across the system, not a courtesy for the connected. Bail decisions should rest on reasoned, published orders so liberty does not turn on who the accused is. Investigating agencies should be held to visible timelines in high-profile cases to dispel suspicion of pace calibrated to power. State police must answer when non-state actors usurp their function. And statutes such as the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, freshly given Presidential assent, must be judged by fair enforcement, not assent alone. The republic's promise is simple: the smallest citizen and the largest stand equal before the law. This week, the courts must make that promise visible.
A justice system earns trust not by whom it spares, but by proving it spares no one on account of office or faith.
Your Constitutional Rights
What the Constitution guarantees in this storyAn arrested person must be told the grounds of arrest, may consult a lawyer of their choice, and must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Fundamental RightNo person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law — read by the courts to include dignity, privacy, health, a clean environment and livelihood.
Fundamental RightNo one can be convicted under a retrospective law, punished twice for the same offence, or compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Fundamental RightThe State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services.
Directive PrincipleWhat 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 →