Court comes down hard on monikers to crime accused

CHENNAI: Striking down the moniker “Monkey” assigned to an accused in a waylaying case, a City court came down hard on the practice of assigning monikers to crime accused and has asked the top brass of the police to instruct subordinates to stop the practice.

From physical handicaps like Othakan (One eyed), Nondi (limp) to physical features- Onaan (lean), Pulimootai (fat), Kulla (short) to outright derogatory terms, Tamil Nadu Police’s practice of assigning monikers to accused in criminal cases has been discriminatory for a long time now.

“Law enforcement and legal professionals are expected to adhere to ethical standards, including treating individuals with professionalism and courtesy. Allowing derogatory language to be used in legal contexts perpetuates harmful stereotypes and contributes to a culture of disrespect and discrimination,” stated D Lingeshwaran, Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court.

The Judge’s observations were in response to a criminal case against a 27-year-old man accused of robbing Rs 1,100 from a person at knifepoint. Arumbakkam Police had mentioned the moniker, “Kurangu” (Monkey) before the accused’s name in the legal documents.

Every individual, regardless of their circumstances, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using derogatory names undermines this principle, and can cause emotional harm to the accused, the court said adding, “In legal proceedings, it’s essential to maintain neutrality and fairness. Using derogatory names can prejudice the perception of the accused and may affect the impartiality of the legal process and also violates the human rights of the accused.”

Apart from the stinging remarks, the bad day at Court for Arumbakkam police extended to their case, too.

The prosecution’s case is that on July 14, 2022, the accused had wrongfully restrained a person, Vasanthakumar and threatened him at knifepoint and took Rs 1,100 from him. When the public intervened, the accused allegedly threw stones on them and criminally intimidated them.

After perusing the material evidence and documents, Additional Sessions Judge D Lingeswaran noted that even though the alleged incident had occurred in a busy place, no independent witness was examined and in the alleged stone throwing, nobody was injured.

“The two stones marked as evidence were not more than 1 cm in diameter. The story that the accused used those stones to scare away a crowd would not be believed even by a ‘Kindergarten’ child. The stones could not even scare away a crow. Upon observing the stones, the court could discern that the Police Inspector had attempted to play a practical joke, “the Judge noted.

The Judge also wondered about the seven-month delay in filing the final report despite submitting all other documents and evidence on the day of occurrence and held that the prosecution witnesses (two of them police constables) are unreliable and that the complainant is a tutored witness. Stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused, the court held the accused not guilty.

Allowing derogatory language in legal contexts perpetuates harmful stereotypes and contributes to a culture of disrespect and discrimination