Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response On Granting Reparation To Girl Who Was Harassed By Pink Police Officer

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday called for the specific views of the State government on subject of granting compensation to an 8-year-old child and her father who were antagonised by a pink police officer in public, levelling accusations of theft against them.

When the matter came up for consideration, Justice Devan Ramachandran also opined that it was justified to grant compensation, as sought for by the petitioner, under constitutional tort:

"I certainly propose that compensation should be granted to the petitioner following the Nambi Narayanan verdict. This case is fit for granting compensation to the petitioner under strict liability principle as laid down in Nilabati Behera v. State Of Orissa by the Apex Court."

The petitioner had sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under constitutional tort. However, the Court clarified that the said amount did not seem just and that the State may suggest any amount it was willing to offer the petitioner. 

"But I do not accept the claim for 50 lakhs. That is a highly exaggerated amount. Let's see what figure the State comes up with if at all they accede to the prayer."

During today's proceedings, Clinical Psychologist, Dr Sreelal who assessed the child a few days after the incident appeared before the Court through the virtual mode.

The doctor submitted that he attended the child thrice in the month of September and that for every sitting that girl had displayed remarkable maturity and ego-strength. He added that the child is quite intelligent and communicated well with him from the very first second, unlike other children of her age.

When asked if she exhibited any distress from the incident, he responded in the negative and remarked that he notice nothing unusual in her behaviour. It was further stated that although she was brought in with a suspicion of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), the girl did not seem to be affected by long-term trauma. 

The Court was glad to hear the same, particularly when the doctor opined that the child did not require any future support since she was a strong and mature girl. 

Advocate A.K. Preetha appearing for the petitioner submitted that the family had not accepted the apology rendered by the concerned police officer. She argued that they were still traumatised from the incident and the pursuant legal complications of running from pillar to post in search of justice.

It was also brought to the Court's notice that they were specifically aggrieved by the fact that the officer stood her ground even before the Court that if not her mobile phone, the petitioner and her father must have stolen the wireless. 

The Bench then observed that nobody would justify the actions of the police officer and that the unconditional apology tendered by the officer was not the end of this matter even if it was accepted. The Judge added that perhaps if the apology was accepted, it would count as a closure for the child, about whom the Court was gravely concerned.  

"I don't want her growing up thinking there is an enemy in this lady (the police officer). This apology was never meant to close the proceedings. It was just for some kind of a closure, merely to calm the child."  

The counsel further alleged that there were concerted efforts to protect the officer and that this worried her in her pursuit to provide justice to the child. 

Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan continued to argue that the child was not intimidated by the police officer but by the crowd that started gathering around them. 

The Court took strong exception to the arguments of the Prosecutor for persisting to support the officer while Advocate S. Rajeev appearing for the said officer had admitted her guilt in the matter. 

It was further enquired why the Police was standing in the way of taking proper disciplinary action against the officer. 

Notably, the Court in its earlier order had directed the State to come up with measures that it proposed to adopt to restore the girl's faith in the police and humanity.

However, it was noted that except for psychiatric evaluation, the Government had not proposed anything else to be done for the girl. The Court added that as per the professional opinion of the doctor, she did not require psychological support anymore, rather she needs justice.

"There is a demand for compensation under constitutional tort in the plea. In my opinion, this should be granted to the petitioner. I'm making it clear once again; I have nothing against the officer, I'm only concerned about the child. I'm trying to find justice for both of them; that's how justice works." 

The Court further noted that it was certain that some sort of disciplinary action had to be taken in the matter, rather than a mere transfer. It also observed that the pending proceedings before the SC/ST Commission may continue.

The matter will be taken up on Monday at 1:45 pm by which time the State is required to inform the Bench of its view on providing public law reparation to the petition and what amount they propose to give.