JUDGMENT : inviolable essential for Police Force to act with self control and tolerance and to treat citizens with respect and courtesy have already been spoken affirmatively by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Siddique Babu v. State of Kerala ( 2018 (5) KHC 576 ). However, instances of allegations to contrary are still arriving at doors of this Court with alarming regularity and therefore, I feel it necessary to issue certain general directions in this judgment, apart from deciding specific factual assertions of petitioner. 2. petitioner has approached this Court making several accusations against fourth respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, who, he says, has been harassing him constantly and even subjected his daughter to verbal abuse. petitioner says that fourth respondent also attempted to foist various complaints against him; and consequently that he was left without any other remedy but to have approached this Court through this writ petition. 3. afore submissions of petitioner, made by his learned counsel-Smt. Ansu Sara Mathew, were countered by learned Government Pleader-Sri. E.C. Bineesh, submitting that truth is not as has been averred by petitioner. He submitted that an “Action Taken Report” on allegations of petitioner has been placed before this Court, through his memo dated 30.07.2021, wherein, it has been explained that on “one day in April 2021”, while fourth respondent -Sub Inspector of Police was on COVID enforcement duty, petitioner's minor daughter and certain other people were seen gathered in former's Supermarket by name “Priya Supermarket” violating COVID–19 protocols and therefore, that he issued a notice to them and explained necessity of complying with said protocols. 4. learned Government Pleader, thereafter, submitted that on 20.04.2021, petitioner was found by same Officer in Supermarket without a mask and without taking adequate steps to ensure social distancing among his customers; and that he was, therefore, imposed a fine of Rs.500/- under provisions of Kerala Epidemic Disease Ordinance, 2020. He then added that petitioner continued to violate COVID–19 protocols with impunity and resultantly that Sectoral Magistrate issued him a notice on 24.05.2021 and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 5. He then added that petitioner continued to violate COVID–19 protocols with impunity and resultantly that Sectoral Magistrate issued him a notice on 24.05.2021 and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 5. learned Government Pleader further predicated that petitioner was also involved in other offences, which is evident from fact that on 11.05.2021, a lady by name Smt. Radhika Maruthi launched a complaint before Police that he had taken 22 gms of gold from her illegally, but that this was then settled by agreeing to return same; while on 06.05.2021, another complaint was launched against him by a certain Sri. Joy, leading to a crime being registered as Crime No.289/2021, under provisions of Sections 454, 461 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, accusing him of having purchased stolen gold. He explained that investigation into this crime lead to recovery of gold from petitioner and that it has been produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. Before moving on, I must record that on examining afore “Action Taken Report” on 25.08.2021 - when this case had been earlier listed - noticing that certain specific allegations of petitioner had not been adverted to by District Police Chief, Thrissur in it, I issued following order: “I have examined “Action Taken Report” filed by District Police Chief, Thrissur. 2. There are some issues in this report which are disconcerting. 3. For first, in paragraph 2, District Police Chief refers to “one day in April 2021”, with respect to allegation of petitioner that his daughter was harassed by 4th respondent. 4. For second, paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to repeated offences of petitioner with respect to Covid-19 protocol violations; however, no substantiating documents or materials have been placed on record. 5. As regards paragraphs 5 and 6, I am certain that this Court cannot interfere in any of them and that petitioner will have to invoke his remedies, if any. 6. As far as this Court is concerned, what is important is that 4th respondent is alleged to have used abusive language against petitioner's daughter, but report of District Police Chief is silent on this. Further, allegation of repeated harassment by 4th respondent against functioning of shop by petitioner has not been specifically answered with reference to whether area was in a containment zone at relevant time or whether there was a lock-down in force. 7. Further, allegation of repeated harassment by 4th respondent against functioning of shop by petitioner has not been specifically answered with reference to whether area was in a containment zone at relevant time or whether there was a lock-down in force. 7. I am, therefore, of firm view that these issues will require to be specifically addressed by District Police Chief through an additional report. I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 31.08.2021, for District Police Chief to file additional report as afore.” 7. Today, an additional “Action Taken Report” has been placed before this Court, wherein, District Police Chief says that, pursuant to afore order, an investigation was ordered through Inspector of Police, Cherpu, who found that fourth respondent did not use abusive language against petitioner's daughter and that statements of eye witnesses, in corroboration, have also been recorded. As regards harassment to his business alleged by petitioner, District Police Chief admits that Cherpu Panchayat was included in “Containment Zone” between 30.04.2021 and 25.05.2021, but asserts that ward No.11 - where petitioner's Supermarket is situated - continued to be so included until 30.06.2021. 8. learned Government Pleader, thus submitted that, therefore, Sub Inspector and Sectoral Magistrate were wholly justified in having imposed penalties against petitioner for violation of COVID–19 protocol. He concluded by vehemently maintaining that no harassment had been meted out to petitioner or his daughter; and added that they are not required to visit Police Station for any purpose henceforth. 9. When I carefully assess “Action Taken Reports” filed by District Police Chief, I am forced to say that there are several loose ends in it. It is strange that first “Action Taken Report” did not even advert to allegation that petitioner's daughter had suffered verbal abuse; while in second 'Action Taken Report”, it is merely stated that an enquiry by Inspector of Police has found otherwise, but said report has not been placed on record nor have details of enquiry even referred to in it. Further, both “Action Taken Reports” have attempted to cast aspersions on petitioner, to project him as a person who is a virtual habitual offender. conduct of petitioner is not relevant to this case because even if it is assumed that he is so, no Police Officer can transgress perimeters of decency. 10. Further, both “Action Taken Reports” have attempted to cast aspersions on petitioner, to project him as a person who is a virtual habitual offender. conduct of petitioner is not relevant to this case because even if it is assumed that he is so, no Police Officer can transgress perimeters of decency. 10. I do not propose to say further, since this Court is incapacitated from verifying truth and since petitioner has remedies, if he is so interested to invoke. 11. Though I conclude as afore, one aspect that singularly troubles mind of this Court is allegation of petitioner that fourth respondent -Sub Inspector used abusive language against his minor daughter on accusation that she had not complied with COVID–19 protocols. This is something that creates disconcert to this Court – though I do not propose to find affirmatively one way or other taking note of Action Taken Reports of District Police Chief - because there can be no doubt that Police Authorities are obligated to enforce COVID–19 protocols with humanism and in full compliance with civilized behaviour. 12. When entire world is reeling under deleterious effects of COVID–19 pandemic, there can be no doubt that citizens have to comply with Protocols put in place, but this cannot be done -for whatever be reasons -in violation of civilized behaviour and in contravention of requirements of decency and civility, which are inbuilt into system of policing in a cultured society. 13. As I have said said exordially to this judgment, even after Siddique Babu (supra), march of citizens to this Court, on assertion that they have been verbally abused or treated with indignity by Police Officers continues; and it consequently needs to be taken with seriousness it deserves by Director General of Police, who has been arrayed as second respondent in this case. 14. directions that I am proposing presently are not solely with respect to facts of this case and is more intended to sensitise Police Force, when they deal with citizenry on a day-to-day basis. 15. Often, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a citizen to prove that a Police Officer has addressed him/her in a derogatory manner, or has dealt with them with an abusive tenor, because such imputations are investigated by police authorities themselves. 16. 15. Often, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a citizen to prove that a Police Officer has addressed him/her in a derogatory manner, or has dealt with them with an abusive tenor, because such imputations are investigated by police authorities themselves. 16. Though, not substantiated in majority of cases, petitions filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court in what is now known as “police harassment matters” impute that Police Officers have addressed petitioners with derisory and disrespectful words, instead of culturally acceptable vocatives. Words like 'eda', 'edi', and 'nee' are often alleged to be used against citizens by members of police in a routine manner, even when public safety measures like COVID-19 protocols are enforced. 17. It may not require this Court to speak with great elaboration or expatiation when I say that afore words, if used to address citizens by Police Officers, is anathema to a civilised and cultured Force and are relic of colonial subjugatory tactics. Certainly, they have no place in a free country marching in pace with needs and requirements of 21st century. Use of these and such other words to address citizens by any Police Officer is wholly impermissible and therefore, it is now imperative for this Court to declare that such use by any member of Force is contrary to constitutional morality and conscience of our country and is antipodean to ethos of a democratic system. It is so declared. 18. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition, refraining from making specific directions on facts of this case, but recording submissions of learned Government Pleader, thus leaving liberty to petitioner to invoke his remedies against any of allegations made against him, which are recorded in Action Taken Reports of District Police Chief, if he is so advised. 19. That being so said, since this Court is now certain that use of disrespectful words to address citizens cannot be tolerated or permitted, I direct State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions, by way of a Circular or otherwise, to all members of Force under his command that they shall address citizens using acceptable vocatives and shall not use aforementioned or such other words or phrases. 20. 20. I must record that, at this time, learned Government Pleader intervened to say that, noticing declarations in Siddique Babu (supra), State Police Chief had issued Circular bearing No.C3/174267/2018/PHQ dated 30.11.2018, ordering that 'all officials working in Police Department are legally bound to speak to all decently'. He submitted that this circular has been brought to notice of all officers; and that Controlling Authorities have been directed to give due attention and additional training to members of Force for this purpose. 21. Though I appreciate afore action taken by State Police Chief, it cannot be lost sight of that afore circular is stated to be dated 30.11.2018, but complaints of rude behaviour and improper address by Police Officers still reach doors of this Court, three and more years thereafter. 22. This Court is, therefore, firm in resolve that State Police Chief should appositely remind all officers of their unexpendable obligation to treat and address citizens with respect. Consequently, State Police Chief will act as per afore directions and inform this Court about steps taken in this regard through a report to be filed within two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Registry will list said report before this Court appropriately to verify compliance and for consideration if any further orders becomes necessary on this aspect.