Last day, the Home Department ordered an investigation into the case of the loss of guns and bullets from a Kerala police team that had gone on election duty from Kerala to North Bharat. During the train journey, the officers allegedly ‘lost” the weapons. An inquiry was ordered against ten police officers, including the Commandant of the 3rd Battalion of the Kerala Armed Police, who were on duty.
The state police team went on election duty in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The incident related to the case was in November last year. The policemen informed authorities that the gun and bullets were lost on the train. However, during the train journey, it was claimed that a drunken Sub Inspector (SI) of the group threw the weapon and cartridges out of the compartment.
Later, police officers searched 150 kilometres of the railway track in the Jabalpur area but could not find the missing firearms. The police team finally returned to Kerala without weapons, leaving many mysteries behind. Madhya Pradesh Police had registered a case in the incident.
The state police chief had reported to the government that the incident of missing weapons was a severe breach of discipline by the police officers, and there was a lack of supervision in the storage of firearms. Based on this, the Home Minister ordered a departmental inquiry.
25 INSAS weapons and 12,061 cartridges were reported missing from the Special Armed Police (SAP) battalion’s arsenal in Thiruvananthapuram by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its report in early 2020. Additionally, it claimed that prior to the audit, the police agency attempted to conceal the lack by manufacturing phoney bullets.
The CAG report said, “The police department failed to act upon the report of the board and trace the missing ammunition and fix responsibility on the officials who committed the serious offence of fraudulent re-packing of the rounds.” The Kerala government denied the allegations and claimed that awards and emblems were made out of melted empty bullet cases.
This week also saw the Kerala High Court criticise the bad behaviour of the Kerala Police officials. Justice Devan Ramachandran openly criticised the force while considering the contempt of court petition against a police officer. In the case, an SI verbally insulted a lawyer.
Adv. Aquib Suhail went to the police station with a court order to release a vehicle involved in an accident at Alathur police station. The court took the case voluntarily after the visuals of SI V.R. Reneesh verbally abusing Suhail went viral.
“Be it a lawyer, an ordinary man or a man on the street, every citizen must be respected. I have repeated this many times. How long do I have to say this? Do you mean that you will not understand, no matter what?“
“Whether it is a police officer or a judge, if you put on that uniform, you should behave in a manner befitting the position. People have faith in that uniform. It does not mean exercising power over the people.”
“Resorting to violence under pressure, cannot be accepted. What will happen to the commoner if this is the case with a lawyer?”
“Is it so difficult to be polite to people? Job stress is no excuse for bad behaviour. Police are trained to withstand pressure. But if you cannot bear the pressure, you should resign from your job and leave,” Justice Devan Ramachandran said while considering the contempt petition filed by the lawyer.
While hearing the case last time, the High Court had said that work pressure is not a license to misbehave with people. The police officer said he regretted the incident and was ready to apologise unconditionally.
Yesterday, the court pointed out that Reneesh’s affidavit contains contradictory and ambiguous statements. The explanation is that nothing has been done in contempt of court.
In the reply affidavit submitted by the police officer, it was not stated whether he verbally abused the lawyer. At the same time, he expressed regret over the incident. This is contradictory. Why apologise if no foul language was used?
If it is argued that the crime has not been committed, a trial must directly prove it. The court also directed the SI to face trial for contempt of court or give a clear affidavit. The court directed the DGP to inform the court about the progress of the disciplinary action against the police officer. The case will be heard again on 1 March.
Several circulars were issued to correct the conduct, but the court asked what the officials had learned. The court severely criticised the police when the DGP appeared in this case.
The court had earlier directed to explain the report of action taken and other related matters. Explaining this, the DGP told the court that mental stress often leads to police misconduct. The court held that street workers also suffer from mental stress, and mental stress is not a license to misbehave.
After 1965, several circulars have been issued to improve the conduct of policemen. Still, the court asked whether the officers had not learned their lesson. The court said these matters should be taken seriously and that a circular released after Reneesh’s incident should be the last circular.
The DGP informed the court that a meeting of the police officers would be called and decisive action would be taken. He added that Reneesh had been transferred. This was when Reneesh’s lawyer filed an affidavit in the court. The affidavit was that he was ready to apologise unconditionally for the incident.
Meanwhile, the government has sought three weeks for an explanation in a petition filed by the High Court Advocates Association seeking guidance regarding the procedure to be followed by the police when dealing with lawyers who come to the station for professional purposes and in filing cases against the lawyers. The instruction is to inform the public what decision was made on the recommendation given by the Central Bar Council and the Kerala Bar Council.
Does it mean we do not have a proper protocol right now? Several petitions related to police conduct are pending before our courts. Allegedly, police officials do not take the circulars to regulate behaviour seriously.
