Kochi: The state government has been dealt a blow in the infamous pink police case at Attingal, with the High Court of Kerala on Wednesday granting the petitioner a compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh.

A single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran has also imposed Rs 25,000 as a cost to be paid for legal expenses. It has also ordered disciplinary action on the police officer concerned.

The petitioners, an eight-year-old girl and her father, had moved the High Court seeking compensation of Rs 50 lakh from the government for humiliating them on the roadside on August 27.

The petitioner, Jayachandran and his daughter were accused of theft while they waited near a pink police car at Moonumukku near Attingal. The pink police officer, Rajitha, had claimed that the child had stolen her mobile phone, which was later discovered inside the car.

The child and her father were frisked by the officers and the incident had caused shame to the state police. Rajitha was transferred but the petitioners had demanded compensation.

"The abject helplessness and despondency that the child must have gone through at that point of time can never be properly described and it is evident she suffered grave trauma and fear, being terrorized in full public gaze by a police officer who ironically was expected to offer her solace and protect her being the pink patrol unit," Justice Devan Ramachandran said.

The court also urged the state government to protect children from rising to their defence. "I expected the state to rise to her defense, because she is their daughter as much as she is ours, and to offer her some amount as reparation, which this court certainly would have accepted, however small or large it was.

"But their stern refusal to even recognise her mental trauma and terror she went through would certainly require this court to sit up and take notice," the judge said.

The state and police had also contended that the officer was entitled to the protection available under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, which insulates an officer from any suit or legal proceedings in respect of his/her conduct in good faith as part of their official duties.

They had claimed that the officer's actions were in discharge of her duties and she had no intention of intimidating the girl or her father. Justice Ramachandran rejected all these contentions.

"It does not matter whether the officer acted vindictively, viciously or deliberately. The fact that the girl went through the harrowing experience, which will leave a scar on her psychological development, is ipso facto sufficient to grant her reparatory relief under the public law remedy", the court said.
(With agency inputs)