'Can't Let Our Daughters Grow Up In Anger' : Kerala High Court Directs Grant Of Rs 1.5 Lakh Compensation To Girl Harassed By Police; Directs Action Against Officer

After a series of elaborate hearings, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday delivered its judgment in a plea moved by a minor girl who, along with her father, were harassed by a pink police officer in a public road, casting accusations of theft on the duo. (Pink police is a special women protection squad of Kerala police).

While granting compensation to the girl, a single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran in its decision recorded:

"We cannot let our daughters grow up in anger; immediate remedial steps should be taken. No one can dispute that her Fundamental Right under Article 21 to lead a dignified and full life was violated."

The Court placed reliance on the decision of Nilabati Behera v. State Of Orissa where it was held unequivocally that compensation under public law is an acknowledged remedy, and noted that this salutary principle had stood the march of time. The Judge further pointed out that the Apex Court had granted a hefty compensation amounting to Rs. 1 crore to Nambi Narayan on the very same principle. 

As such, the Court granted a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 towards legal expenses in the matter within a period of 1 month.

The girl had sought a declaration that the State government is vicariously liable to pay a compensation of Rs 50,00,000 as public law remedy for the tortious act of the officer. However, the Court took the stand that the amount set out in the judgment would suffice to commensurate the situation: 

"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."

Further, the Court left open all contentions of the petitioner so that she or her father can seek a larger compensation through civil law remedies.

The Court also recorded that it expected the State to rise in defence for the petitioner since she was 'its daughter' as well. Therefore, it expressed its disappointment at the stern refusal of the State Government to acknowledge the trauma that she went through and opined that this certainly require the Court to sit up and take notice. 

"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. "

competent police authorities to initiate disciplinary action against the police officer but it declined to order her removal from the force considering the fact that the officer herself is a mother to three young children and is in dire financial circumstances:

"I, therefore, cannot, as a routine, direct any action to remove her from employment or such other as what is important for the petitioner is not an eye-for-an-eye as the lex talionis principles go but that she must obtain closure to the trauma she, unfortunately, had to go through. The apology placed on record by the police officer certainly goes some way in this direction though I am aware that the petitioner and her father have decided not to accept it and continue with their legal remedy against the said officer."

The Court also found it unfortunate that the officer belonged to a police force specifically devoted to the protection of women and girls:

"The Pink Police certainly is a revolutionary concept intended for the support and amelioration of women and children and had the police officer been completely aware of this and the responsibility that she carries of being a member of such a force, she would certainly not have acted in the manner she had with little Devipriya. I can only rue that she did not remember the potential consequences of her conduct with Devipriya which could have certainly been avoided by hugging her or putting her arm around her at the time and saying a word as simple as 'sorry'."

The State had argued before the Court today that the girl was not entitled to compensation since several facts of the case were disputed by the respondents.

During the previous hearing of the case, the State had argued that the Court may not proceed with deciding the case based on the visuals of the incident but on the affidavit and statement produced by the respondents. The primary argument raised then was that the girl started crying only after the crowd gathered around them. 

Today, the Court went through each of the statements and affidavits and pointed out that even in these documents, it was revealed that the child started crying way before the crowd gathered, being intimidated by the conduct of the police officer. Therefore, the Judge concluded that prima facie it would appear as if the girl was sobbing and crying as a result of the officer's demeanour.

Moreover, it was further argued that no reliance could be placed on the visuals produced by the petitioner's counsel since it was not made part of the record. As such, the Court had directed the official respondents to produce the visuals the IGP had referred to in her affidavit. 

Pursuant to this direction, the respondents had produced a CD containing the visuals of the incident recorded by a passerby. However, after the video clip was played in the open court, the State again argued that it could not be relied on. 

The Judge had previously asked the State to see if the case was fit for grating compensation under a constitutional tort and to decide on an amount in case it was deemed fit. However, the State government refuted this claim and maintained its stand that the petitioner was not eligible for any compensation since none of her fundamental rights had been violated by the incident. 

What Was The Incident?

The 8-year-old petitioner who was allegedly falsely accused of stealing a mobile phone from a Civil Police Officer moved the Court seeking a directive to the State to take stringent action against the officer for infringing her fundamental rights.

The petitioner and her father were waiting to witness the shipment of cargo containing machinery used for the construction of a tunnel at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Center.

Since the shipment attracted crowds, a police force, including a pink patrol squad, was deployed to control the crowd. The pink patrolling vehicle was parked three metres from her father's scooter. Feeling thirsty, the petitioner and her father went to a nearby shop for some drinking water.

To their astonishment, the accused rushed to them, yelling at the duo to return her mobile phone, which according to her, was stealthily removed by them.

The petitioner had also accused the Civil Police Officer of attempting to disrobe her and her father in the guise of a search. She argues that she was intentionally insulted and intimidated with an intent to humiliate her in front of the public.

When they denied any involvement in the incident, she proceeded to humiliate them with 'coloured remarks' and 'disparaging comments'.

Intimidated, the petitioner started crying out aloud. She saw a huge crowd gathering around her and this subjected her to fear, humiliation and grave mental agony. Meanwhile, a fellow police constable recovered the phone from accused officer Renjitha's bag which was kept in the patrolling vehicle itself.

The petition also revealed that the officer's action left the child traumatised, requiring medical attention. She couldn't sleep or attend her online classes for around 2 weeks as per the plea.

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment