New Delhi: The Kerala high court has questioned how the state government could oppose the plea for compensation of an eight-year-old Dalit girl who had been falsely accused by a police officer of stealing a phone and humiliated over it.The state government, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan, said that public law remedy can only be sought when the facts are “undisputed” and there is undeniable violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution.To this Justice Devan Ramachandran said that the government believed there was no violation “because they don’t recognise fundamental rights,” reported Bar and Bench. “Some people are more less than others, other people are more more than others, maybe that is what it is, we do not know,” the judge said as part of oral observations.Justice Ramachandran also pulled up police over inaction, directing the state to look into compensating the child monetarily under constitutional torts. The News Minute has reported that the court has also refused to accept the state government’s report.Bar and Bench has reported that the incident took place while people were watching equipment being transferred to the Indian Space Research Organisation centre in Thiruvananthapuram. Bystanders have said that a policewoman accused the child, who was standing with her father, of stealing her mobile phone – which was later found in her vehicle.“According to the petitioners, the police officer used derogatory language and intimidated and threatened them, following which the girl was left traumatised, and required counselling,” the report said.The police officer belonged to the ‘Pink Patrol’ meant to enhance safety of women, The News Minute has reported.APP Narayan also held that the court cannot take cognisance of the incident because no evidence has been placed on record and it is thus dependent on affidavits and statements.The accused Inspector General of Police has claimed that the girl cried not because she humiliated her but because of the crowd that had gathered.The court also noted the mention of video on social media in a statement and chastised police for not producing it before the court.