How can a parallel governance mechanism improve law enforcement in situations where state institutions fail due to political pressure or inaction?

In many parts of India, we have laws meant to protect the environment, and public interests, but enforcement often falls short. This is especially the case when state-level institutions like the police fail to act because of political pressure or interference. When that happens, the damage is twofold: citizens lose trust in governance, and the idea of equal justice under the law begins to erode.

This concept note proposes a simple idea: a parallel governance mechanism that operates independently and works alongside state systems, not to replace them but to hold them accountable. In the current situation, indivuduals, communities and other stakeholders to rush to the courts with PILs to get a justice delivered. The purpose is to ensure that when state agencies fail to enforce laws or actively avoid taking action, there is another level of oversight that can intervene, ask questions, and make sure justice is not denied.

This mechanism could be structured as a dedicated wing under an existing national bodies like the Comptroller and Auditor General, the National Human Rights Commission, or a reformed Lokpal in collaboration with the judiciary of India. It would have the authority to monitor serious lapses in enforcement, intervene when there is evidence of wrongdoing or negligence, and issue show-cause notices to state officials when appropriate. In cases of persistent failure, it can recommend action to Parliament or the courts. Importantly, this body would function transparently, with clear public communication about what it is doing and why.

Such a system would be triggered only in specific situations, when complaints are repeatedly ignored, when courts or independent institutions flag state inaction, or when violations of law are well documented through public evidence or media investigations. The goal is not to micromanage states, but to step in when clear failures occur and when there is a risk to fundamental rights, public safety, or the environment.

For example, consider a case where illegal construction is taking place in a protected forest area, and the local police or municipal officials do nothing because the builder is politically connected. In such a situation, this parallel mechanism could launch an independent inquiry, request an explanation from the local administration, and report the findings publicly. If needed, it could also initiate legal or administrative processes to stop the violation. This kind of oversight would act as a deterrent and encourage state agencies to perform their duties properly.

Creating such a mechanism also reinforces the idea that governance is not just about who holds power, but about how responsibly that power is used. It helps protect citizens and the environment when local systems are under pressure or compromised. At the same time, this must be done carefully, with strong safeguards to prevent overreach. The system must follow clear criteria for intervention, operate independently from central or state political influence, and maintain public trust through transparency and fairness.

In conclusion, this proposal is not about centralising power. It is about strengthening democracy and protecting people by ensuring that governance remains functional and fair, even when the usual systems fail. A parallel governance mechanism offers an additional layer of accountability, one that can keep the law alive and working for everyone, regardless of political circumstance.

Amar