Read Time: 06 minutes

In the much talked about case of pink police officer harassing an eight year old child, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday delivered its judgment and ordered the State government to pay a compensation to the tune of 1.5 lakh to the victim girl.

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.

In a previous hearing, the public prosecutor representing the state had contended that there was no violation of the girl’s fundamental rights and it cannot compensate. To this Justice Devan Ramachandran, who has been presiding over the matter noted that “they (State) are saying there is no violation of fundamental rights probably because they don't recognise certain fundamental rights. Some people are less than others, other people are more than others, maybe that's how it is."

Justice Ramachandran also pointed out that the woman officer had also admitted that the child had started crying even before a crowd gathered, but the affidavit filed by an Inspector General of Police (IGP) contended that the girl cried only after hearing the ridicule by the people there.

On Wednesday, Justice Ramachandran showed his dismay over State’s clear rejection of the trauma the victim minor went through. He stated:

"It is not in contest that the event has traumatised her. It doesn't matter if she (the officer) acted vindictively, viciously or deliberately, the fact that little Devipriya went through a harrowing experience that could leave a scar on psychological well-being is ipso facto sufficient to grant her reparation under public law remedy. 

The father-daughter duo had asked for a compensation to the tune of 50 lakh rupees, however, the Court ordered state to pay 1.5 lakh stating:

“The trauma suffered by little Devipriya is immeasurable but when it is estimated in monetary terms this court will have to keep in mind certain basic parameters and I am therefore of the view that the afore amount would subserve justice substantially, if not fully.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Nilabati Behera v. State Of Orissa wherein the Court had held that under public law compensation is an acknowledged remedy, and noted that this salutary principle had stood the march of time.

Name Withheld (minor) v. State of Kerala