In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has directed that police officers operating in plainclothes, commonly referred to as "mufti police," must carry proper identification and authorization documents to ensure clear recognition by the public. This directive emphasizes the necessity for transparency and accountability in police operations, particularly when officers are not in uniform.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident where plainclothes police officers were monitoring two individuals who, upon noticing the officers, engaged with three other persons. When the officers approached and questioned them about their presence, the individuals allegedly sprayed a liquid on the officers' faces and fled the scene. Consequently, charges were filed against the individuals for obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties, under various sections of the law.
Arguments Presented
The defense argued that the officers were in civilian attire and did not present any identification, making it reasonable for the individuals to question their authority. They contended that without proper identification, it is challenging for citizens to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement officers and impostors.
On the other hand, the prosecution maintained that plainclothes operations are essential, especially in sensitive cases like narcotics investigations. They argued that the visibility of uniformed officers could compromise such operations, as suspects might evade arrest upon spotting police presence.
Court's Observations and Ruling
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, presiding over the matter, acknowledged the necessity of plainclothes operations in specific scenarios. However, he underscored the importance of proper identification to prevent misunderstandings and ensure public trust. The court referred to Section 294 of the Kerala Police Manual, which stipulates that officers should perform their duties in uniform unless "special and limited purposes" necessitate plainclothes operations, which must be specifically authorized.
The court noted that neither the Kerala Police Act nor the Bureau of Narcotics and Special Services (BNSS) explicitly addresses the conduct of officers in plainclothes. This omission highlights the need for clear guidelines to govern such operations.
Drawing from the precedent set in Avinash v. State of Kerala (2021), where the court emphasized the importance of police officers wearing uniforms while on duty, Justice Kunhikrishnan reiterated that officers in plainclothes must carry their identity cards and the specific order authorizing them to operate out of uniform. He stated:
"Kerala is a state where the literacy rate is high. Most of the people are sensitive. Therefore, policemen should be vigilant while doing mufti policing... They should introduce themselves as policemen and also show their identity cards before intercepting or questioning the suspected people. Without the same, if the public questions a mufti police, nobody can blame them."
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling has significant implications for law enforcement practices in Kerala. By mandating that plainclothes officers carry proper identification and authorization:
Enhanced Public Trust: Citizens are more likely to trust and cooperate with law enforcement when officers clearly identify themselves, reducing the potential for conflicts and misunderstandings.
Prevention of Misuse: The directive aims to curb incidents where individuals impersonate police officers, a concern acknowledged by the court due to reports of fraudulent activities by those misusing uniforms to pose as police, CBI, or customs officials.
Operational Clarity: Law enforcement agencies are now required to issue specific authorization orders for plainclothes operations, ensuring that such measures are employed judiciously and transparently.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's directive serves as a crucial reminder of the balance that must be maintained between effective law enforcement and the rights of citizens. By enforcing identification protocols for plainclothes officers, the court seeks to uphold public trust, prevent misuse of authority, and ensure that police operations are conducted with the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.