That's an entirely different problem set from what seems to be happening in India. What you're describing in the US is a system where perceptions and punishment of superficially similar behaviour vary based on your position with society, namely based on whether you activate the sympathies or antipathies of the mainstream establishment. I.E. that old lady is much less likely to be perceived as aggressive and anti-social in court than a young minority member. The system is not completely fair, and you can argue about the extent to which the system is unfair, but the system at least holds fairness as an ideal, and the mainstream establishment identifies with this ideal. Cops and judges may not perceive it as unfair if a similar crime when committed by an old rich lady is more likely to be viewed as a regrettable mistake (especially if she appears distraught and repentant in court) than when committed by a minority member.

In India it seems like fairness is not even part of the equation. It sounds like a seriously dog-eat-dog environment, where there are few if any checks on raw, ruthless antisocial behaviour. Society lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them.

Basically it is the difference between a society where people are shocked and angered by unfairness and a society where people are desensitised or even perversely excited by unfairness.