PAVUL YESU DHASANversusTHE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

                 [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 complainant-
       third 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                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                               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.
2.   Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3.   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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             2551

                        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.
4.   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.
5.   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;
6.   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.
7.   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                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the
     third respondent’s mother.
8.   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.
9.   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