Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. the Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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
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.
†