"What kind of reply is this?" Kerala High Court slams police officer for saying he verbally abused lawyer due to pressure

A police officer's uniform signifies trust and cannot be used to abuse power, the Kerala High Court said on Friday while criticizing a police officer for saying that he may have used derogatory language against a lawyer due to pressure and in the heat of the moment. .Justice Devan Ramachandran highlighted that police officers must uphold the trust reposed in them responsibly.“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..The Court was dealing with a case involving allegations that a police officer had verbally abused a lawyer in Palakkad district. The accused police officer today submitted an affidavit containing an unconditional apology, through his counsel.However, the Court was displeased to note that the police officer's affidavit did not clearly admit or deny the allegations against him. Rather, the judge noted that the police officer had only vaguely mentioned that he had acted unintentionally and under pressure..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 over the police officer's defense, stating that pressure and circumstances do not justify improper behavior.“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 criminal contempt of court charges would be initiated against him if he does not furnish 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..In response, the advocate representing the police officer assured the Court that a proper affidavit would be filed. .The case before the Court concerns several petitions concerning police conduct, including one filed by the Kerala High Court Advocate Association (KHCAA) which has called for a mechanism to fast-track the adjudication of complaints against police misconduct.The matter will be heard again on March 1.