October 27, 2026

When The Family of a Girl Becomes the Police, Judge and Executioner

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2026-10-27 03:29:24

About the Author

Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

View all posts by this Author

An alleged teenage romance in Kolkata has ended in a horrifying display of vigilante violence. Whatever the provocation, no family has the right to assault, threaten or publicly humiliate another person in the name of honour.

The reported events in Behala, Kolkata, are disturbing not merely because of the brutality alleged, but because of what they reveal about the growing temptation to replace the rule of law with personal vengeance.

According to the newspaper reports, an 18-year-old boy, his father and a 19-year-old friend were allegedly assaulted after the boy was seen with a 13-year-old girl. The boy and his friend were reportedly dragged to the girl's house, where her father and maternal uncle allegedly beat them. The boy's father was then summoned and allegedly forced to walk naked through a busy road at gunpoint after being threatened with the choice of killing his son, stabbing him or accepting the humiliation.

If these allegations are established, this was not an expression of parental concern. It was an act of coercion and collective punishment that strikes at the most basic principles of a civilised society.

There is an important distinction that must not be lost in the outrage. A 13-year-old is a child. Any relationship involving a child of that age raises serious questions about her safety, vulnerability and the responsibility of adults to protect her. If there is evidence of exploitation, abuse or other unlawful conduct, it must be investigated and dealt with under the law. The boy's age, the girl's age and the precise circumstances all matter. Nobody should prejudge the criminal liability of anyone involved.

But none of this gives a family the right to take the law into its own hands.

The alleged treatment of the boy's father makes the incident especially chilling. What possible justification could there be for threatening a parent with a gun and forcing him to choose between harming his own child and suffering public humiliation? The purpose of such an act, if the account is accurate, was not to protect a minor. It was to terrorise an entire family into submission.

And what of the bystanders? What does it say about public life when a man can allegedly be humiliated in public under armed threat? The newspaper report describes residents protesting against the alleged assault and threats, with some claiming that the family members were armed. Their intervention is welcome, but it also raises an uncomfortable question: how quickly can an ordinary neighbourhood become the scene of mob justice when people decide that anger is sufficient authority?

There is a further concern. Residents reportedly vandalised the girl's house in protest against the alleged treatment of the three victims. Their anger may be understandable, but retaliatory violence is not a substitute for justice either. The same principle must apply to everyone. A family cannot assault alleged wrongdoers, and a crowd cannot punish that family by destroying property. The law must act against each offence independently.

The police, meanwhile, must establish the facts without fear or favour. The newspaper report says the girl's parents and maternal uncle were arrested, while police denied allegations that they had delayed the arrests. That denial deserves to be recorded alongside the residents' allegations. The investigation must determine what happened, who participated, whether firearms were used or threats made, and whether anyone attempted to obstruct the victims from seeking help.

This is precisely why due process matters. It protects the vulnerable without permitting the accused to be punished by private violence. It gives the police the responsibility to investigate, prosecutors the responsibility to present the case, and courts the responsibility to decide guilt and punishment.

There is no room for selective outrage here. Those who demand strict action when a child may have been exploited must demand equally strict action when a family allegedly uses violence to settle the matter. Protecting a minor and protecting the rule of law are not competing objectives. They are complementary obligations.

The larger danger is that society begins to accept the language of vengeance whenever the alleged offence provokes strong emotions. Today, it may be a suspected relationship involving a minor. Tomorrow, it could be an interfaith relationship, a family dispute, an accusation of theft or a neighbourhood quarrel. Once private individuals acquire the authority to decide guilt and impose punishment, nobody's safety is guaranteed.

A civilised society cannot operate on the principle that the angriest person gets to dispense justice. Nor can parental authority, however deeply felt, become a licence for cruelty.

If the allegations from Behala are proved, the perpetrators must face the consequences prescribed by law. If there was wrongdoing involving the minor, that too must be investigated on the evidence. Neither issue should be used to excuse the other.

The test of a society governed by law is not whether it condemns conduct that shocks its conscience. It is whether, even in moments of anger and moral outrage, it refuses to abandon the rules that protect everyone.

In Behala, that test is now before the police, the courts and the community itself.