The phrase ‘moral policing can be done in a more decent and elegant fashion’ contains a troubling assumption: that the problem with moral policing is the manner in which it is done rather than the authority it claims. But who gives strangers the right to decide how another person should behave? And when did social disapproval become a licence to stop someone on a road and enforce a private idea of morality?
That question matters after the September 19 incident in Jamui, Bihar. A Class 10 boy and girl were reportedly intercepted by a group while returning from coaching. The boy was assaulted and the girl was molested. Videos of the incident later circulated on social media. The police registered a case under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The investigation has since moved beyond the initial arrests. Police have identified seven people in connection with the incident, including three minors, and subsequent reports said all seven had been taken into custody. Two adult accused, Nandan Yadav and Hareram Yadav, were injured during police operations and taken to hospital.
The incident became a political controversy after Bihar minister and Jamui MLA Shreyasi Singh said that “moral policing can be done in a more decent and elegant fashion” while speaking about the case. She later said her remarks had been taken out of context and maintained that the treatment of the teenagers was unacceptable. Yet her clarification does not remove the larger question. Is there really a decent way for strangers to police someone else's morality?
The fact that the victims were minors makes the question more complex. A Class 10 student does not have the same legal autonomy as a consenting adult. Parents and guardians have responsibilities towards children. Schools and child-protection authorities have a role when a child is at risk. If strangers genuinely believed that two children were in danger or that an offence had taken place they could have informed the police or contacted their families. What they could not claim was the authority to stop the children and impose their own punishment. Protecting a child and policing a child are not the same thing.
{{/usCountry}}The fact that the victims were minors makes the question more complex. A Class 10 student does not have the same legal autonomy as a consenting adult. Parents and guardians have responsibilities towards children. Schools and child-protection authorities have a role when a child is at risk. If strangers genuinely believed that two children were in danger or that an offence had taken place they could have informed the police or contacted their families. What they could not claim was the authority to stop the children and impose their own punishment. Protecting a child and policing a child are not the same thing.
{{/usCountry}}This distinction becomes especially important for girls. Women and girls already negotiate public spaces in an environment where safety is uneven. The National Commission for Women's NARI 2025 report surveyed 12,770 women across 31 cities. About 40% said they felt “not so safe” or “unsafe” in their city. Seven per cent reported harassment in public spaces in 2024. The figure rose to 14% among women under 24. The report also found that two-thirds of harassment incidents went unreported. These are survey findings about perceptions and experiences rather than a measure of all crime. Yet they show how safety can shape the way women experience public life.
Patna was also among the cities placed at the lower end of the NARI 2025 index. That does not tell us that Jamui is unsafe or that the Jamui incident is representative of the district. It does show that concerns about women's safety are relevant to the wider Bihar context.
A girl may have the legal right to attend coaching and walk home or meet a friend. Yet fear of harassment can influence when she leaves and which route she takes. She may also think about how her presence with a boy will be perceived. This is where moral policing adds another burden. A girl can first be told that public spaces are dangerous because she may be harassed. If she is then seen with a boy the question can shift from “Why was she harassed?” to “Why was she with him?” The attention moves from the conduct of the people who violated her safety to the conduct of the girl herself.
The Constitution offers a different standard. Articles 14, 19 and 21 protect equality and fundamental freedoms as well as life and personal liberty. These rights do not give minors the same autonomy as adults. Nor do they mean that every personal choice is beyond regulation. They do mean that the State has a duty to create conditions in which people can exercise their rights without being subjected to arbitrary violence or coercion.
The Supreme Court made this principle particularly clear in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India. The case concerned assemblies that sought to interfere with the choices of adults in matters of marriage. The Court held that such assemblies cannot take the law into their own hands or act as law-enforcement agencies because no law gives them that authority. If they believe an offence has occurred they can inform the police or lodge an FIR. They cannot assume the power to determine guilt or impose punishment themselves. The Court also said that the rule of law leaves no space for informal institutions to deliver justice.
The logic extends further than the facts of that case. If a group believes that two young people are behaving improperly then it does not acquire legal authority to punish them. If it believes that a child is unsafe then it can seek help through the appropriate institutions. The moment it decides to become investigator and enforcer itself the boundary between concern and vigilantism disappears.
The same principle matters on the other side of the case as well. The police have arrested accused persons and the investigation must establish what happened. Even when allegations appear serious the guilt of an accused is ultimately a matter for the legal process. The principle that no private group can decide guilt through force should apply to everyone.
This is why the Jamui incident should not become only a debate about whether two teenagers should have been together. It is a question about who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and who gets to enforce that decision. Parents can guide their children. Schools can intervene to protect students. Citizens can report offences. But social disapproval does not create a private police force.
For women and girls this boundary matters deeply. They should not have to navigate public spaces first through fear of violence and then through fear of judgement. A society that tells girls to be careful must also ask why strangers believe they have the right to decide what that care should look like.
A democratic society does not require everyone to agree about morality. It requires a clear boundary between holding a moral belief and using that belief to control another person's choices. Moral disagreement is part of a free society; coercion is not. There is no decent way to moral-police a girl. The decent thing is to ensure that she can move through public life without fear of violence, humiliation or the judgement of strangers.
(The views expressed are personal)
This article is authored by Ritu Kumari, development professional, Bengaluru.