Kochi, December 22
The LDF government was on Wednesday directed by the Kerala High Court to cough up Rs 1.75 lakh towards compensation and litigation cost for the “trauma” and “terror” caused to a minor girl by a pink police officer, who “acted as judge, jury and executioner” while accusing the child and her father of theft.
The court said the pink patrol unit, a revolutionary initiative of the state, was “ironically” expected to provide “solace and protection” to the child, but instead one of its officers ended up “terrorizing” the girl in full public gaze.
“The abject helplessness and despondency that the child must have gone through at that point of time can never be properly described and it is evident she suffered grave trauma and fear, being terrorized in full public gaze by a police officer who ironically was expected to offer her solace and protect her being the pink patrol unit,” Justice Devan Ramachandran said.
Besides the pink police officer, the court also found the state and the police lacking in protecting the child, as instead of rising to her defense and offering her some reparation, the “sternly refused” to even recognise the trauma suffered by her.
“I expected the state to rise to her defence, because she is their daughter as much as she is ours, and to offer her some amount as reparation, which this court certainly would have accepted, however small or large it was.
“But their stern refusal to even recognise her mental trauma and terror she went through would certainly require this court to sit up and take notice,” the judge said.
The state and the police, defending the actions of the officer, had contended that the girl never faced any intimidation on account of the officer’s actions and therefore, none of her fundamental rights were violated.
They had also said no serious misconduct can be attributed against the officer, in relation to the incident, as her reaction was only “natural” when she was under the impression that her phone had been stolen by the girl’s father.
The state and police had also contended that the officer was entitled to the protection available under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, which insulates an officer from any suit or legal proceedings in respect of his/her conduct in good faith as part of their official duties.
They had claimed that the officer’s actions were in discharge of her duties and she had no intention of intimidating the girl or her father.
Justice Ramachandran rejected all these contentions in the more than two hour long proceedings, of which more than hour was devoted to dictating the order in open court that was packed with lawyers.
The court said that the officer in question, in her affidavit, has admitted to have acted in the heat of the moment when she found her phone missing and despite this, the state and the police continued to support her and “deny the girl her legitimate rights under the public law doctrine by saying that the facts, particularly the time at which the child began crying, of the incident were disputed”.
The court said it was “irrelevant” when the child started crying and what was important was that she did “which can only be because she was terrorised and feeling despondent when confronted by an officer in uniform and being accused of stealing and hiding a mobile phone”.
It said in view of what the child went through, “no one can dispute her fundamental rights to lead a dignified and full life have been violated on account of the incident”.
“It does not matter whether the officer acted vindictively, viciously or deliberately. The fact that the girl went through the harrowing experience, which will leave a scar on her psychological development, is ipso facto sufficient to grant her reparatory relief under the public law remedy”, the court said.
With regard to the protection available to police officers under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, the court said it would not be applicable in the instant case as “respondent 4 was trying to find her own phone and was virtually acting as judge, jury and executioner in her own cause”.
The court went on to direct the state government to pay Rs 1.5 lakh to the girl as compensation, Rs 25,000 as litigation cost and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the errant officer.
It also directed that till the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and concluded, the officer shall be kept away from duties, which would require her to interact with the general public and further ordered that she should be given necessary training on interpersonal relationships with the public at large.
The court said the training was important, keeping in mind the larger requirement of police officers dealing with the public in a civilized manner as has been often stated by it in several judgements and orders in the past.
With these directions, the court disposed of a plea filed by the 8-year-old girl, seeking a direction to the government to take stern action against the officer for infringing her fundamental right.
She had also sought Rs 50 lakh as compensation, but the court said the amount awarded by it was sufficient and the petitioner was entitled to seek higher damages under civil law.
The court also said the petitioner and her father can proceed with any other litigation they may want to initiate against the officer.
The incident occurred on August 27 when Attingal resident Jayachandran reached Moonumukku with his eight-year-old daughter, who wanted to watch the movement of a massive cargo to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) in Thumba.
Rajitha, the woman Pink police officer, was deployed to assist in traffic regulation and she accused the duo of stealing her mobile phone that was kept in the police vehicle.
In a video which went viral, the officer and her colleague were seen harassing the father and the daughter and even frisking him. The child broke down amid their harassment.
However, when an onlooker dialled the number of the officer, the mobile phone was found in the police vehicle, following which the police team left the scene without even tendering an apology to the father and the daughter.
As part of a disciplinary action, the woman officer was transferred and the State police chief directed her to undergo behavioural training.
