The Supreme Court order directing the re-invoking of KCOCA against one of the accused in the Gauri Lankesh case can be expected to provide some momentum to the case that has thus far progressed at a rather slow pace. The three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar, reversed the April 22 order of a single-judge bench comprising Justice KS Mudagal of the Karnataka High Court, which had dropped the application of KCOCA against one of the accused, Mohan Nayak. This judicial correction has come at the right time from the apex court. KCOCA is a stringent law, formulated on the lines of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, which is sparsely used in instances of organised crime events. Under the law, the police can take accused persons in custody for 30 days, as against 14 days in normal circumstances. In the case of judicial custody, KCOCA allows for a 180-day period in comparison to 90 days under normal circumstances. The Act further contains the provision of rejecting bail pleas on prima facie involvement of the accused persons in criminal acts. The Karnataka High Court had dropped the use of KCOCA charges against Mohan Nayak, citing he was not engaged in "continuing unlawful activity" and did not face more than two criminal cases in the past 10 years, as required under the law. The Khanwilkar-led Supreme Court bench, however, clarified that the mentioned provision was not applicable to show the link with the accused who have been proved to be involved in syndicate crimes. The Supreme Court very clearly outlined that Karnataka High Court had "examined the matter by applying erroneous scale." The SC bench observed that the "specific role of the accused is not required" and that the "aspect would be unravelled during the investigation, after registration of offence of organised crime." It has been around four years since the 55-year-old Karnataka based journalist was allegedly gunned down by a Hindu outfit. The 17 accused in the case are yet to face trials in the case. The sloppy development of the case comes on account of multiple intervening bail pleas by the accused, and several other factors. In public perception, the Gauri Lankesh case is seen as a case of silencing the voices that are hostile to those holding power and position. Apart from the individuality of the case, it goes far beyond to possibly indicate an unholy nexus that is powerful and all-prevalent. Talking in general terms, syndicate crimes systems have projected before us a problem of monstrous proportion. These syndicates often become the invisible face of power centres with vested commercial and political interests. The distinction between such a system of crimes and individual crime incidents has to be very clear, as the approach required for dealing with the two must differ greatly. Syndicate crime has come to characterise many large towns and cities surrounding metropolitan areas and is spreading its tentacles with each passing day. The Supreme Court correction in the Gauri Lankesh case no doubt holds relevance for the particular case. But at the same time, it sets a larger precedent for the application of KCOCA, MCOCA and similar Acts. It is important to note that some of the prime accused in the Gauri Lankesh case, like Amol Kale and Sharad Kalaskar, are also facing charges of murder of Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, and the scholar MM Kalburgi. All these cases have been lingering for a long time, delaying justice for petitioners. One of the prime reasons behind these delays is that these cases are not perceived through the lens of a syndicate. The Supreme Court direction, though a minute correction in the interpretation of KCOCA, can, apart from lending momentum to the Gauri Lankesh case, go a long way in bringing about a change in the way that the syndicate crime systems have been functioning around the country. It is certainly a step towards preserving the peaceful and orderly functioning of society.