Bureaucracy that forgets the people forgets its purpose, says Kerala High Court

Reminding that a humane touch is necessary in every administrative act of bureaucrats and that ‘the bureaucracy that forgets the people forgets its purpose’, the Kerala High Court has discharged a person who had been charged under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code with ‘assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty’.

The case pertains to an alleged incident in which the son-in-law (the revision petitioner in the case) of a 76-year-old man was charged by a Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kollam. His father-in-law had contacted the office of the tahsildar to have three cents of property mutated in his name in the revenue records. The tahsildar was reportedly reluctant to do so, citing technical reasons. At a hearing was scheduled in the office of the tahsildar, the revision petitioner and his father-in-law requested action on the file, which was pending for about one-and-a-half years.

A quarrel with the tahsildar resulted. A criminal case was registered against the revision petitioner and he was charged with entering the cabin and uttering obscene words, snatching the office file from the section clerk, and throwing the file and plastic chairs in the room, thereby obstructing the tahsildar’s duty. The magistrate ordered that the petitioner had to face trial under Section 353 of the IPC, following which he filed the criminal revision petition before the High Court.

His lawyer submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 353 of IPC is not made out. The public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the ingredients of Section 353 IPC are made out.

‘No criminal offence’

Passing the order discharging the revision petitioner, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that his actions ought to have been avoided. However, it seemed that his actions could be attributed to the plight of his aged father-in law. It was a sudden reaction and no criminal offence was made out.

“Red tape creates unpleasant situations. In the present case, if the officials had adopted a pragmatic approach, the incident could have been avoided. That is why it is often said that bureaucracy should serve democracy, not be its master. It is often said that every file has a face, and every decision has a consequence. Every decision made in an office affects a life outside of it,” the court said.