The Kerala High Court criticized an officer’s conduct and emphasized the importance of trust linked with the police uniform. Justice Devan Ramachandran highlighted the duty of officers to maintain integrity. The court discussed allegations of verbal abuse by a police officer in Palakkad district and expressed doubts about the officer’s defense, cautioning about potential criminal charges if clarity isn’t given. The case includes petitions on police behavior, with further hearings set for March 1.
The Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of trust associated with a police officer’s uniform and criticized an officer for potentially abusing authority by using derogatory language against a lawyer. Justice Devan Ramachandran emphasized the responsibility of police officers to uphold trust and integrity.
READ ALSO: Law Commission Proposes Mandatory Registration of NRI-Indian Marriages
The court addressed allegations of verbal abuse by a police officer in Palakkad district, who submitted an apology through his counsel, though the court found the affidavit lacking in clarity.
Justice Ramachandran expressed skepticism about the officer’s defense, highlighting that pressure and circumstances cannot justify improper behavior.
“The (police) uniform is a trust. Even this uniform is a trust. It is not something given to you, to use the power (the way) you want. When I wear this (judge’s) uniform and sit here, I am told I too have to be restrained,” the judge said.
Justice Ramachandran asked the police officer’s lawyer to clarify whether the police officer was admitting to the allegations against him.
“Tell me whether your client has said so or he has not said so. There is a clear allegation that you (police officer) used prohibitive words and vocatives against an individual who came to the police station, whatever be his stature whether he be a lawyer, whether he be a person who is on the street, a homeless person, it doesn’t matter. I have been trying to get this word to every officer that every citizen is important. That is what I am trying to tell the officer that they are not bigger than the others. What kind of reply is this? You really think we don’t understand things?” Justice Ramachandran remarked.
The judge also expressed disbelief regarding the police officer’s defense, asserting that external pressure and circumstances cannot excuse inappropriate conduct.
“This person has the guile to come and tell me in para 12 ‘I submit that the incident was (un)intentional.’ What is intentional? ‘And it happened out of heat of passion of circumstances.’ Nobody has pressured him to be an officer. You are saying I cannot see the video because it is inadmissible… And if you say I did it due to passion and pressure, today I have got 273 matters before me, I will say I got pressure, I will start abusing you, will you accept it? We are all under the trust of people. Pressure circumstances, and bad behavior cannot go together. This is why you are trained,”
Justice Ramachandran said.
The Court proceeded to warn the police officer that he could face criminal contempt of court charges if he fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
“I can take criminal contempt on this face and I will decide how it is proved or disproved. I will give you opportunities to disprove. I will frame the charges. I don’t know what you meant in your affidavit. You have to face trial and prove it or file a proper affidavit. Which is your option?”
asked Justice Ramachandran.
READ ALSO: Sharad Pawar Urges Supreme Court for Urgent Hearing on NCP Faction Recognition
The court warned of potential criminal contempt charges if a satisfactory explanation is not provided. The case involves various petitions regarding police conduct, including one from the Kerala High Court Advocate Association seeking expedited resolution of complaints against police misconduct. The matter is scheduled for a further hearing on March 1.
