'Court vs. Station': Bombay High Court Slams Police for 'Jekyll and Hyde' Behavior
In a stinging observation that echoes the frustrations of countless citizens, the Bombay High Court has called out the stark contradiction in the conduct of police personnel. During a hearing on Friday, the court highlighted that while officers often present themselves as cooperative and polite within the judicial premises, they frequently adopt an arrogant and high-handed demeanor when dealing with the public at police stations. This judicial rebuke came as the bench dismissed a plea from the Maharashtra government, which sought to recall a penalty previously imposed on a law enforcement officer for failing to provide an accused person with a mandatory copy of their complaint.
Judicial Hammer Falls on Police Arrogance
The controversy stems from an incident at the Wada police station in Palghar, where the Station House Officer (SHO) repeatedly denied an accused individual access to their complaint copy. The High Court had previously imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the officer for this procedural lapse. When the Additional Public Prosecutor attempted to shield the officer by shifting blame to other staff members, the bench—comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhar—firmly rejected the excuse. The court remarked, "Your officers here in the court behave very cooperatively, but in the police station, they behave arrogantly," emphasizing that the systemic refusal to provide legal documents is a recurring issue that forces citizens to seek judicial intervention unnecessarily.
A Pattern of Non-Compliance
The court's frustration is not new; back in June, the same bench had expressed severe displeasure over the growing number of petitions filed by citizens who were being denied their basic legal rights at the station level. Under the law, it is mandatory for the police to provide an FIR or complaint copy to the accused, yet the court noted that many individuals are being pushed to approach the High Court simply to secure these documents. By dismissing the state's petition, the judges reiterated that they found no error in their earlier order, signaling a strict stance against police departments that ignore transparency and procedural fairness. This judicial warning serves as a significant check on police power, reminding law enforcement that their duty is to serve the public, not to intimidate them with the very authority meant to protect them.
