A graphic artist from Debe will have to wait until July 18 to learn the fate of his constitutional lawsuit over being not allowed to apply to join the T&T Police Service (TTPS) because of a visible tattoo.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad set the date after giving attorneys representing the TTPS and Dillon Ramraj deadlines for filing submissions in his case.
Addressing the parties, Justice Seepersad noted that Ramraj’s case was important as it would give the court an opportunity to determine whether the TTPS’s tattoo policy is unreasonable or violates fundamental constitutional rights.
“These reviews are important as we still operate in an environment in which inherited colonial regulations and archaic policies and processes still form part of our operational framework and many of them really ought not to be factored into life in a modern democratic society,” Justice Seepersad said.
In his court filings, Ramraj’s legal team led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan claimed that he dreamed of being a police officer since he was a child.
“The claimant would look at Independence Day parades and always admired the uniforms worn by the Defence Force...The police uniform represented to the claimant a sense of stability and patriotism,” his lawyers said.
He claimed that in early 2019, he visited the Police Training Academy in St James to apply to join the TTPS.
He claimed that his application was rejected based on the fact that he had a small tattoo of a shuriken (a star-shaped throwing weapon used by ninjas) on his hand.
Ramraj claimed that he got the tattoo when he was 16-years-old when he was heavily involved in martial arts.
Ramraj unsuccessfully attempted to have the tattoo removed before he reapplied to join the TTPS in May, last year. His application was rejected once again.
Ramraj’s lawyers referred to three similar but differing policies regarding tattoos and body art for officers which were published by the TTPS between 2011 and 2021.
Under the first policy, TTPS recruits were precluded from engaging in tattooing and body piercing.
In the second policy, issued by a departmental order in 2020, candidates were allowed to have tattoos and body provided that such is not visible on their head, face, neck, ears, scalp, or hands.
They were also barred from having cleaned tattoos which can be deemed excessive, obscene, or sexually explicit.
The third policy, issued in 2021, was similar to the one that preceded it but allowed prospective officers to conceal tattoos on visible portions of their bodies using make-up.
Ramraj’s lawyers admitted that their client would have been excluded based on the 2011 policy when he first applied in 2019. However, they questioned why he was subsequently denied after the policy was twice altered.
They claimed that the policies breached his constitutional rights to equality of treatment from a public authority and freedom of expression.
“The claimant feels like the 2011 and 2021 tattoo policies implemented by the Commissioner of Police stifles his expression and identity. It makes him feel muzzled,” they said.
They also claimed that the policies were illegal, irrational, arbitrary, and not reasonably justifiable.
“There is no rational connection between such a policy and the maintenance of the professional image of the TTPS,” they said.
“This is more so in circumstances where many senior officers proudly display their tattoos without any fear of repercussion. This is plainly discriminatory,” they added.
Through the lawsuit, Ramraj is seeking a series of declarations against the policies as well as compensation for the alleged breaches of his constitutional rights.
During the hearing before Justice Seepersad, attorney Coreen Findley, who represented the TTPS, claimed that her client did not find Ramraj’s two failed alleged applications.
In June last year, High Court Judge Margaret Mohammed dismissed the judicial review and constitutional claim brought by two Special Reserve Police (SRP), who claimed that they were blocked from joining the TTPS because of their tattoos.
In dismissing the case, Justice Mohammed ruled that SRPs Givon Quamina and Michael Marcano were blanked in 2013 and 2019 based on the 2011 policy and not the later policies, which they claimed should have applied to them.
Ramraj is also being represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Renuka Rambhajan, Che Dindial, Natasha Bisram and Ganesh Saroop.