Read Time: 09 minutes

Justice Devan Ramachandran of the Kerala High Court on Monday slammed the State Police Chief (SPC) for filing a report which has reportedly justified the conduct of the former Pink police officer, who had allegedly humiliated an 8-year-old girl and her father in a public road at Attingal in the capital district.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the minor girl along with her father. According to the recording played in CD, on August 27, Thonaikal resident Jayachandran, a rubber tapping worker, and his daughter had gone out to see a vehicle of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), passing through the road. A civil police officer, Rajitha, was present in the vicinity with the pink police vehicle parked there. She accosted the father and child and started questioning them, downright accusing them of stealing her phone. The CPO raised her voice at the child too, demanding her phone. Later, when someone dialled her number, her phone was found inside her bag. The officer left the scene without an apology. An onlooker shot a video of the incident that went viral. The visuals were examined in the open court.

Since the incident the police officer has been transferred to Kollam city police and she was also asked to attend a 15-day special training session as part of disciplinary action.

On November 18, the family moved the High Court, seeking compensation. They demanded strict action against the official. The petition claimed that the incident had caused the child serious distress. The family alleged that the police and the government were trying to protect the guilty and sought compensation of Rs 50 lakh.

In an earlier hearing Justice Ramachandran had directed the DGP to file a report. Remarking that the incident is deeply painful and disturbing, Justice Ramachandran had said this could have been solved if the officer apologised at the sport.

“She should have simply bent down and apologized to the child upon realising her mistake. It would have ended there. The phone is not as valuable as this girl's life. If a normal man had done this, the girl would probably not have cried. But here it was a police officer in uniform. A normal person would have said sorry, but she didn't. This is nothing but khaki ego and arrogance," he had remarked.

On Monday, the Court observed that in the report filed, the SPC was trying to create an curtain, which was unfortunate. The report further stated that the incident does not attract any action under section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court said that the report was completely silent on whether any other provisions of law, including the IPC, would be applicable in the case.

The SPC said in the report that the officer had been transferred to Kollam and she was asked to serve in a non-uniformed post. However, the report did not say whether this was done by way of punishment or as to what provision of the law was followed for doing this, except saying that she was also asked to attend behavioural training, the court said.

The court observed that instead of trying to support or justify the conduct of the civil police officer, the SPC must ensure that every officer acted with empathy and responsibility towards the fellow citizen.

During Monday’s hearing the state police chief Anil Kant claimed that the girl started crying when the crowd around started ridiculing the officer. The Court rejected this claim and stated it is evident from the video that the girl started crying because of the officer.

“This is where the cover up starts. Khaki always stands for khaki,” Justice Ramachandran remarked. 

On the other hand, the accused police officer via an application has extended her “profuse and heartfelt” apology to the girl. She has further said that she is mother of three and comes from a disadvantaged background. The Court while sympathizing said, it is no reason to behave the way she did. The Court enquired what the state would do to restore the girl’s faith in the police.

"All I want to know is that the child will be taken care of by the State. She has a brilliant future ahead of her, I want to make sure she is not scarred for life."

The matter will be taken up again on 15th December.

Case Title: Name Withheld (minor) v. State of Kerala