Kerala High Court grants relief to man who threw file in Tahsildar office out of frustration

Bureaucratic officials should serve the public with a humane touch, observed the Kerala High Court recently while granting relief to a man who was booked in a criminal case after he threw a file in a Tahsildar's office out of frustration [Manilal v. State of Kerala]..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan opined that bureaucrats engaging in unnecessary red tape behaviour will not be conducive to a successful democracy. A bureaucracy that forgets the people forgets its very purpose, he observed. "A citizen approaching a public servant may react in various ways, but patience should be the guiding attitude in such situations.... Red tape behaviour will create unpleasant situations.... That is why it is often said that bureaucracy should serve democracy, not be its master," the Court further said. .The Court urged public officials to act with humanity and pragmatism, and always remain conscious of the fact that their actions have real world consequences for millions of ordinary citizens. Empathy is vital to connect the government and its people, the Court remarked. "A humane touch is necessary in every administrative act of bureaucrats. It is often said that every file has a face, and every decision has a consequence. Behind every decision, there is a person with hopes, fears and dreams. Every decision made in an office affects a life outside of it. Administrative decisions are not just papers; they are lives in progress. The success of democracy is not just about governance by elected representatives of the people alone, but it also relies on the way bureaucrats support such a government with a humane approach. Without a humane approach, a democratic government cannot succeed," the August 14 ruling said. .The bureaucracy that forgets the people forgets its very purpose. Empathy is the bridge between a democratic government and its people.Kerala High Court.The Court made the observation while considering a revision petition filed by one Manilal who was booked under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 294(b) (uttering obscene words in public place) of the Indian Penal Code after an unpleasant visit to a Tahsildar's office with his 76-year-old father-in-law. Manilal and his father-in-law had gone to the Tahsildar's office to have 3 cents of property mutated in his name in revenue records, for which he had already paid land tax. After many unsuccessful attempts over the course of over a year, a hearing was scheduled in the Tahsildar's office. However, the Tahsildar tried to delay the hearing again. According to the prosecution, Manilal then uttered obscene words, snatched the office file from the section clerk, and also threw the file on to the Tahsildar's table, apart from hitting plastic chairs kept in the room.Manilal moved a trial court for a discharge from the criminal case he was booked in over the incident. However, the trial court only discharged him from the criminal charge under Section 294(b) IPC. He subsequently moved the High Court with a petition arguing that even if the entire allegations against him were accepted, the offence under Section 353 would not stand either..Considering the definition of Section 353, the Court concurred with Manilal."The petitioner only snatched a file and threw the same onto the table. It is true that the petitioner hit a plastic chair on the floor. At that time also, there is no criminal force used against any person, nor is there any intention to use force to cause or knowing it to be likely that by such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used", the Court explained..The Court acknowledged that Manilal ought to have desisted from losing his cool in this manner. However, the Court sympathised with him, saying that he had acted in this manner upon seeing his elderly father-in-law in an embarrassing situation..The Court, therefore, allowed the revision petition, discharging Manilal completely from all charges. .Manilal was represented by advocates Sooraj T Elenjickal, Helen PA, Athul Roy, Indrajith Dileep, Amala Anna Thottupuram, and P Parameswaran Nair.Seniro Public Prosecutor Seetha S appeared for the State..[Read Order]