[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2549 : 2025 INSC 677

Pavul Yesu Dhasan v.

The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

(Civil Appeal No. 6358 of 2025)

30 April 2025

[Abhay S.Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to the violation of human rights on refusal to register FIR by the Inspector of Police as also using of objectionable language while talking to complainant's mother; and correctness of order of the State Human Rights Commission directing the Excise Department to pay compensation to the complainant with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant-Inspector of Police.

Headnotes†

Constitution of India - Art.21 - Human Rights Act, 1993 - s.2(d) - Human Rights - Violation of - Refusal to register FIR - Third respondent visited police station for lodging complaint along with his parents - Appellant-Inspector of Police refused to register FIR and also used very objectionable language while talking to third respondent's mother - After holding inquiry, State Human Rights Commission directed the Excise Department to pay compensation to the complainantthird respondent with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant - Interference with:

Held: Not called for - Every citizen of India who goes to a police station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity - That is his fundamental right u/Art.21 - Citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal - Appellant being a senior officer ought to have immediately registered the FIR - However, he not only refused to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the third respondent's mother - Looking to the conduct of the appellant, it was rightly found by the Commission and by High Court that there was violation of human rights on the part of the appellant. [Paras 7-9]

* Author

2550


List of Acts

Constitution of India; Human Rights Act, 1993.

List of Keywords

Human rights; Violation of human rights; Refusal to register FIR; Fundamental right; Compensation; Using objectionable language; Non-registration of FIR; Human dignity.

Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6358 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 21135 of 2022

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellant: P V Yogeswaran, Dr. Ram Sankar, Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Y Lokesh, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, (for M/S. Ram Sankar & Co.)

Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. R. Shase, Balaji Thiagaragan, Sibi Kargil, Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Abhay S. Oka, J.

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu passed an order directing the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the third respondent-complainant. Liberty was granted to the Additional Chief Secretary to recover the said amount from the present appellant who was the Inspector of Police attached to Srivilliputhur Town Police


Pavul Yesu Dhasan v.

The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Station (Crime) Virthunagar District, Tamil Nadu. After holding an inquiry, the State Human Rights Commission found not only that the appellant refused to register a First Information Report (for short, "FIR") but used filthy language while talking to the respondent's mother.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that assuming that the appellant declined to register FIR, it will not amount to violation of human rights. He invited our attention to the definition of "human rights" under Section 2 (d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act"). The submission is that there is no violation of human rights in this case.

Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act reads thus:

"(d) "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India;

The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking. The third respondent visited the Police Station for lodging a complaint along with his parents. The complaint was handed over to a Sub-Inspector of Police who stated that since the transaction has taken place at three different places, he cannot accept the same and he could receive the same only after the Inspector of Police looks at it. He stated that the Inspector was not likely to come to the Police Station on that day. Therefore, he gave a cell phone number of the Inspector to the respondent. The third respondent's mother on the same day tried to contact the present appellant who was the Inspector of Police. After talking to the third respondent's mother, the appellant cut off the phone call. Therefore, as per the instructions received, the third respondent with his parents again visited the Police Station at 5.00 p.m. They were asked to wait till arrival of the appellant who was the Inspector of Police. Ultimately, he arrived at 8.30 p.m. Very objectionable language was used by the appellant while talking to the third respondent's mother which is noted in paragraph (4) of the impugned judgment of the State Human Rights Commission.

All that the third respondent wanted is registration of FIR based on his complaint. Though law is well settled, the Sub-Inspector did not register the crime. The appellant being a senior officer ought to have immediately registered the FIR. However, not only he refused

2552


to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the third respondent's mother.

Under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. All that the third respondent and his parents wanted was registration of the FIR. Every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity. That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal.

Therefore, looking to the conduct of the appellant, it was rightly found by the Commission and by the High Court that there was a violation of human rights on the part of the appellant. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain