Pink Police Harassment: State Denies Existence Of Any Visuals Of The Incident; Kerala High Court Orders Production Of Video Footage

The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State government to produce the video referred to in an affidavit earlier submitted by the IGP, after it denied the existence of any visuals of the incident where a girl and her father were allegedly harassed by a pink police officer.  

The State had informed the Court today that the girl was not entitled to compensation since several facts of the case were disputed by the respondents.  When asked which facts were the points of dispute, the State responded that the officer had not blocked the child but only her father, that she did not cry throughout the incident and that there was no material available before the Court suggesting otherwise.

This came as a surprise since a video clip of the same was played in the courtroom in one of the initial hearings of the case. Justice Devan Ramachandran also pointed out that in an affidavit submitted by the Inspector General of Police, she had referred to a video as well.  

"Since the State now says that the Court cannot take cognisance of the event in the absence of the video, the video referred to by the IGP in her affidavit must be placed before the Court to deliver judgment in the matter after watching the same."

This development ensued after Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan submitted that the girl started crying only after the crowd gathered around them, 'ridiculing' them and not because of the officer's behaviour.

He added that the court cannot take cognizance of the incident because nothing was placed on record including visuals of the incident, if any. In the absence of the same, the court is obligated to go by the statements and affidavits given by the State, it was argued.

However, the Court noted that the responsible police officer had herself admitted that the child started crying when she interacted with her, asking her to show the phone her father had stolen from the officer.  

Advocate A.K. Preetha appearing for the petitioner read out the order issued by the Kerala Child Rights Commission during the hearing to argue that the officer had asked the girl for the phone. It was also pointed out that at least two statutory bodies have established that there has been a violation of the fundamental right under Article 21, thereby making it a fit case for granting monetary compensation.

To this the Court responded:

"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." 

The matter will be taken up the day after tomorrow, by which time the State is to produce the video of the same. 

The incident occurred when the girl and her father were part of a crowd of people watching equipment being transferred to the Indian Space Research Organisation centre in Thiruvananthapuram. Several police officers were deployed for crowd control, including a pink-patrol squad.

As the crowd stood watching, the accused lady police officer allegedly ran towards the father-daughter duo and accused them of stealing her mobile phone, which drew a crowd around them as well.

According to the petitioners, the police officer used derogatory language and intimidated and threatened them, following which the girl was left traumatised, and required counselling.

The mobile phone was later found in the vehicle of the officer but the entire event was filmed by an onlooker and went viral on social media.