Anil J.S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18068 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ANIL J.S
          S/O. SHIVAJI, JAGATHALE HOUSE, GROUND ROAD, CHERPU P.O,
          CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680561.

          BY SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM
          P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.

    2     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
          OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE POLICE
          HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          DISTRICT, PIN - 695010.

    3     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(THRISSUR)
          OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KALYAN NAGAR,
          AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003.

    4     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          CHERPU POLICE STATION, CHERPU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680561.

          SRI E.C BINEESH- GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

                                      2


                                                                      'CR'
                               JUDGMENT

The inviolable essential for the Police Force to act with

self control and tolerance and to treat citizens with respect

and courtesy have already been spoken affirmatively by a

learned Division Bench of this Court in Siddique Babu v.

State of Kerala (2018 (5) KHC 576). However, instances of

allegations to the contrary are still arriving at the doors of

this Court with alarming regularity and therefore, I feel it

necessary to issue certain general directions in this

judgment, apart from deciding the specific factual assertions

of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court making

several accusastions against fourth respondent - Sub

Inspector of Police, who, he says, has been harassing him

constantly and even subjected his daughter to verbal abuse.

The petitioner says that the fourth respondent also

attempted to foist various complaints against him; and

consequently that he was left without any other remedy but

to have approached this Court through this writ petition. WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

3. The afore submissions of the petitioner, made by his

learned counsel - Smt.Ansu Sara Mathew, were countered by

the learned Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh,

submitting that the truth is not as has been averred by the

petitioner. He submitted that an "Action Taken Report" on

the allegations of the petitioner has been placed before this

Court, through his memo dated 30.07.2021, wherein, it has

been explained that on "one day in April 2021", while the

fourth respondent - Sub Inspector of Police was on COVID

enforcement duty, the petitioner's minor daughter and

certain other people were seen gathered in the former's

Supermarket by name "Priya Supermarket" violating the

COVID-19 protocols and therefore, that he issued a notice to

them and explained the necessity of complying with the said

protocols.

4. The learned Government Pleader, thereafter,

submitted that on 20.04.2021, the petitioner was found by

the same Officer in the Supermarket without a mask and

without taking adequate steps to ensure social distancing

among his customers; and that he was, therefore, imposed a WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

fine of Rs.500/- under the provisions of the Kerala Epidemic

Disease Ordinance, 2020. He then added that the petitioner

continued to violate the COVID-19 protocols with impunity

and resultantly that the Sectoral Magistrate issued him a

notice on 24.05.2021 and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

5. The learned Government Pleader further predicated

that petitioner was also involved in other offences, which is

evident from the fact that on 11.05.2021, a lady by name

Smt.Radhika Maruthi launched a complaint before the Police

that he had taken 22 gms of gold from her illegally, but that

this was then settled by agreeing to return the same; while

on 06.05.2021, another complaint was launched against him

by a certain Sri.Joy, leading to a crime being registered as

Crime No.289/2021, under the provisions of Sections 454,

461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, accusing him of

having purchased stolen gold. He explained that

investigation into this crime lead to the recovery of gold

from the petitioner and that it has been produced before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur. He thus

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. Before moving on, I must record that on examining WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

the afore "Action Taken Report" on 25.08.2021 - when this

case had been earlier listed - noticing that certain specific

allegations of the petitioner had not been adverted to by the

District Police Chief, Thrissur in it, I issued the following

order:

"I have examined the "Action Taken Report" filed by the District Police Chief, Thrissur.

2. There are some issues in this report which are disconcerting.

3. For the first, in paragraph 2, the District Police Chief refers to "one day in April 2021", with respect to the allegation of the petitioner that his daughter was harassed by the 4th respondent.

4. For the second, paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to repeated offences of the petitioner with respect to Covid-19 protocol violations; however, no substantiating documents or materials have been placed on record.

5. As regards paragraphs 5 and 6, I am certain that this Court cannot interfere in any of them and that the petitioner will have to invoke his remedies, if any.

6. As far as this Court is concerned, what is important is that the 4th respondent is alleged to have used abusive language against the petitioner's daughter, but the report of the District Police Chief is silent on this. Further, the allegation of repeated harassment by the 4th respondent against the functioning of the shop by the petitioner has not been specifically answered with reference to whether the area was in a containment zone at the relevant time or whether there was a lock-down in force.

7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that these WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

issues will require to be specifically addressed by the District Police Chief through an additional report.

I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 31.08.2021, for the District Police Chief to file the additional report as afore."

7. Today, an additional "Action Taken Report" has been

placed before this Court, wherein, the District Police Chief

says that, pursuant to the afore order, an investigation was

ordered through the Inspector of Police, Cherpu, who found

that the fourth respondent did not use abusive language

against the petitioner's daughter and that the statements of

eye witnesses, in corroboration, have also been recorded. As

regards the harassment to his business alleged by the

petitioner, the District Police Chief admits that the Cherpu

Panchayat was included in the "Containment Zone" between

30.04.2021 and 25.05.2021, but asserts that ward No.11 -

where the petitioner's Supermarket is situated - continued

to be so included until 30.06.2021.

8. The learned Government Pleader, thus submitted

that, therefore, the Sub Inspector and the Sectoral

Magistrate were wholly justified in having imposed penalties

against the petitioner for violation of the COVID-19 protocol.

He concluded by vehemently maintaining that no WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

harassment had been meted out to the petitioner or his

daughter; and added that they are not required to visit the

Police Station for any purpose henceforth.

9. When I carefully assess the "Action Taken Reports"

filed by the District Police Chief, I am forced to say that

there are several loose ends in it. It is strange that the first

"Action Taken Report" did not even advert to the allegation

that the petitioner's daughter had suffered verbal abuse;

while in the second 'Action Taken Report", it is merely stated

that an enquiry by the Inspector of Police has found

otherwise, but the said report has not been placed on record

nor have the details of the enqiry even referred to in it.

Further, both the "Action Taken Reports" have attempted to

cast aspersions on the petitioner, to project him as a person

who is a virtual habitual offender. The conduct of the

petitioner is not relevant to this case because even if it is

assumed that he is so, no Police Officer can transgress the

perimeters of decency.

10. I do not propose to say further, since this Court is

incapacitated from verifying the truth and since the

petitioner has remedies, if he is so interested to invoke. WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

11. Though I conclude as afore, one aspect that

singularly troubles the mind of this Court is the allegation of

the petitioner that the fourth respondent - Sub Inspector

used abusive language against his minor daughter on the

accusation that she had not complied with the COVID-19

protocols. This is something that creates disconcert to this

Court - though I do not propose to find affirmatively one way

or the other taking note of the Action Taken Reports of the

District Police Chief - because there can be no doubt that the

Police Authorities are obligated to enforce the COVID-19

protocols with humanism and in full compliance with the

civilized behaviour.

12. When the entire world is reeling under the

deleterious effects of COVID-19 pandemic, there can be no

doubt that the citizens have to comply with the Protocols put

in place, but this cannot be done - for whatever be the

reasons - in violation of civilized behaviour and in

contravention of the requirements of decency and civility,

which are inbuilt into the system of policing in a cultured

society.

13. As I have said said exordially to this judgment, even WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

after Siddique Babu (supra), the march of the citizens to

this Court, on the assertion that they have been verbally

abused or treated with indignity by Police Officers continues;

and it consequently needs to be taken with the seriousness it

deserves by the Director General of Police, who has been

arrayed as the second respondent in this case.

14. The directions that I am proposing presently are

not solely with respect to the facts of this case and is more

intended to sensitise the Police Force, when they deal with

the citizenry on a day-to-day basis.

15. Often, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a citizen

to prove that a Police Officer has addressed him/her in a

derogatory manner, or has dealt with them with an abusive

tenor, because such imputations are investigated by the

police authorities themselves.

16. Though, not substantiated in majority of the

cases, petitions filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court -

in what is now known as "police harassment matters" -

impute that Police Officers have addressed the petitioners

with derisory and disrespectful words, instead of the

culturally acceptable vocatives. Words like 'eda', 'edi', and WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

'nee' are often alleged to be used against the citizens by the

members of the police in a routine manner, even when public

safety measures like COVID-19 protocols are enforced.

17. It may not require this Court to speak with great

elaboration or expatiation when I say that the afore words, if

used to address citizens by Police Officers, is anathema to a

civilised and cultured Force and are the relic of the colonial

subjugatory tactics. Certainly, they have no place in a free

country marching in pace with needs and requirements of

the 21st century. Use of these and such other words to

address citizens by any Police Officer is wholly

impermissible and therefore, it is now imperative for this

Court to declare that such use by any member of the Force is

contrary to the constitutional morality and conscience of our

country and is antipodean to the ethos of a democratic

system. It is so declared.

18. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition,

refraining from making specific directions on the facts of

this case, but recording the submissions of the learned

Government Pleader, thus leaving liberty to the petitioner to

invoke his remedies against any of the allegations made WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

against him, which are recorded in the Action Taken Reports

of the District Police Chief, if he is so advised.

19. That being so said, since this Court is now

certain that use of disrespectful words to address the

citizens cannot be tolerated or permitted, I direct the State

Police Chief to issue necessary instructions, by way of a

Circular or otherwise, to all members of the Force under his

command that they shall address the citizens using

acceptable vocatives and shall not use the aforementioned or

such other words or phrases.

20. I must record that, at this time, the learned

Government Pleader intervened to say that, noticing the

declarations in Siddique Babu (supra), the State Police

Chief had issued Circular bearing No.C3/174267/2018/PHQ

dated 30.11.2018, ordering that ' all officials working in the

Police Department are legally bound to speak to all

decently'. He submitted that this circular has been brought

to the notice of all the officers; and that the Controlling

Authorities have been directed to give due attention and

additional training to the members of the Force for this

purpose.

WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

21. Though I appreciate the afore action taken by

the State Police Chief, it cannot be lost sight of that the afore

circular is stated to be dated 30.11.2018, but complaints of

rude behaviour and improper address by Police Officers still

reach the doors of this Court, three and more years

thereafter.

22. This Court is, therefore, firm in the resolve that

the State Police Chief should appositely remind all officers of

their unexpendable obligation to treat and address the

citizens with respect.

Consequently, the State Police Chief will act as per

the afore directions and inform this Court about the steps

taken in this regard through a report to be filed within two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Registry will list the said report before this Court

appropriately to verify compliance and for consideration if

any further orders becomes necessary on this aspect.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 11880 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11880/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2021.