This Is Khaki Ego & Arrogance: Kerala High Court On Pink Police Officer Harassing Minor

The Kerala High Court on Monday expressed its astonishment with the inaction of the respondents in the matter where a pink police officer had allegedly mortified an 8-year-old child and her father in public, accusing them of theft.

After a CD containing the video of the incident was played in the courtroom, Justice Devan Ramachandran was visibly distressed and moved.

"The visuals are very disturbing. I'm moved and pained. This was absolutely unnecessary. How did she (the officer) have the heart to proceed when a young girl is sobbing in front of her? Why didn't her heart melt when she saw a child crying because of her?"

The allegation against the officer was that she rushed to the girl and her father, yelling at the duo to return her mobile phone, which according to her, was stealthily removed by them.

When they denied any involvement in the incident, she is accused of having humiliated them with 'coloured remarks' and 'disparaging comments'.

The video displayed at the Court today was taken by a passerby who witnessed the entire incident from his car and recorded the same on his mobile phone. A Civil Police Officer is seen blocking the petitioner child and her father in the visuals.

The evidently frightened girl starts crying as soon as the officer starts questioning her father. Her father is also seen lifting his shirt up presumably to show that he had not taken or hidden the phone on him. 

Soon, a crowd gathered around them and the child can be seen feeling further intimidated. Another police officer tries calling on the allegedly stolen phone and finds it from their patrolling van. 

Upon finding that the father and the child had been harassed for no reason whatsoever, the crowd starts questioning the actions of the officer. However, she can be seen justifying her stand. 

The Court added:

"This could have been handled in a much better manner. 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."

The Single Judge went on to say that the father-daughter duo was subject to harassment possibly on the sole premise of their background:

"I'm sorry to say this but it seems like you judged the person by the dress and his looks. The officer would not have behaved this way if it was someone differently dressed. Imagine what would have happened if the phone was on silent then. The man would have been thrown into jail if it hadn't been recovered by the other police officer."

The Court was surprised at how a woman officer could behave with such arrogance when an 8-year-old girl was crying out of fear in front of her. It remarked that one has to be a human being first before anything else.

"During the entire duration of the video, the girl was crying. What kind of pink police is this? There were plenty of pink police officers witnessing the incident, and yet none of them budged t console the crying child. Will this girl ever have faith in our system again?

When Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor O. Narayanan kept arguing for the officer, the Bench remarked orally:

"You are defending the indefensible. In a western country, this would have been handled much differently and she would have faced a severe penalty."

Upon noticing that around seven proceedings were pending against the incident, the Judge also observed:

"You are underestimating the willpower of the common man."

The accused officer's report was produced before the Court and it was informed that she had been transferred to a different station post the incident. 

The Court directed the respondents to file their counter pleadings. Previously, they were directed to place on record the action initiated against a Civil Police Officer. 

In its Order, the Court did not mention his views on the visuals:

"Though I don't propose to say anything on the visuals, I'm prime facie fo the view that the 2nd respondent DGP will have to devote his attention to the issue at hand and file a report before the court."

Advocate A.K. Preetha appearing for the petitioner submitted that until this time the police had not taken a statement of the petitioner or her father.

The petitioner was stated to be going through severe psychiatric stress after the alleged incident. The court directed the counsel to place o record the details of the treatment she underwent or is undergoing at the moment, if any.

The Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the orders and reasons which impelled the authorities to transfer the officer as well.

The matter will be taken up again on 7th December. 

Also Read: 8 Yr Old Girl Moves Kerala High Court Against Pink Police Officer Over Public Humiliation In False Theft Case