The arrest of Swatantra Bhardwaj in connection with an alleged assault at a protest near Jantar Mantar is not merely a criminal matter involving two individuals. It raises a larger question about the functioning of the rule of law in India — and whether the police, political influence and the media operate by the same standards when the accused is perceived to have powerful connections.

The controversy gained national attention after a video circulated widely in which Mr. Bhardwaj was reported to have spoken about assaulting Sanjay Kumar, the father of activist Nishu Azad, during a protest. He subsequently claimed that the incident was an act of self-defence. The Delhi Police acknowledged that Mr. Kumar had suffered a head injury, while clarifying that reports of a skull fracture were incorrect and that the injury was of a simple nature.

The central issue, however, is not the severity of the injury. It is why police action appeared to take so long despite a complaint and an FIR, particularly when the accused had allegedly spoken publicly about the incident himself. After a protest outside the Parliament Street police station, the police reportedly assured the protesters that action would be taken within 72 hours. His subsequent detention in Bulandshahr raises a legitimate question: why was such action not taken earlier?

There is, however, a need for caution. Mr. Bhardwaj’s claims that he enjoys the support of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Minister Chirag Paswan and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra remain allegations made by him; there is no publicly established evidence to substantiate them. The Delhi Police have also denied allegations of political interference. The appropriate response, therefore, is not to pronounce guilt by association but to demand an independent examination of the claims.

Yet the larger institutional question cannot be avoided. Does the police system respond with equal urgency when the accused is politically or socially influential? Are the same standards applied to protesters, students, journalists, activists and others who challenge those in power?

India’s recent experience makes these concerns difficult to dismiss. Parliamentary data cited in public analyses indicate that 10,440 people were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act between 2019 and 2023, while only 335 secured convictions during the period. These figures do not establish that the cases were false, but they underline the considerable gap between arrest and conviction. Human rights organisations have also raised concerns about the use of stringent laws against journalists and activists, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Supreme Court’s intervention against the practice popularly described as “bulldozer justice” provides another reminder of the limits on executive power. In November 2024, the Court held that an accused person’s property cannot be demolished merely because he is accused of a crime and insisted on due process. The executive cannot assume the role of the judiciary.

The same principle must apply to political opponents and supporters alike. Law enforcement cannot become either a shield for the powerful or an instrument of political retribution.

The media has an equally important role. Concerns over concentrated ownership and the growing influence of powerful corporate and political interests have intensified. Yet independent digital media continue to provide alternative narratives. The real question is therefore not simply who owns the media, but which incidents receive sustained coverage, which become national issues and which remain confined to social media.

The Bhardwaj episode illustrates this problem. A matter appears to have acquired wider public attention only after a video went viral. In a functioning democracy, a victim should not have to wait for an incident to become a social-media sensation before expecting effective police action.

The test of the rule of law is not whether one accused person is eventually arrested. It is whether the same legal standards apply to everyone — irrespective of ideology, religion, caste, political affiliation or proximity to power. An accused person must be investigated fairly, charged on the basis of evidence and convicted only through due judicial process. Equally, no citizen should be treated as a criminal merely for criticising those in power.

The constitutional promise of equality before law cannot remain confined to the statute book. It must be visible at the police station, at a protest site, in the newsroom and in the courtroom. Otherwise, democracy risks becoming merely an electoral exercise, while justice gradually becomes dependent on proximity to power.