The Supreme Court has upheld the findings of the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court, holding that a police officer’s refusal to register an FIR and use of abusive language towards a complainant’s mother amounted to a violation of human rights.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment in Pavul Yesu Dhasan vs. Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu & Others [Civil Appeal No. 6358 of 2025], arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20028 of 2022.
Background
The case pertained to a complaint filed by the third respondent before the State Human Rights Commission. The Commission found that Inspector Pavul Yesu Dhasan, then posted at Srivilliputhur Town Police Station (Crime), Virudhunagar District, had refused to register an FIR and had used abusive language while speaking to the complainant’s mother. It directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000 to the complainant, with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant officer.
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that even assuming the officer refused to register an FIR, it would not amount to a violation of human rights under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court was urged to interpret the term “human rights” narrowly, limiting it to rights enforceable by courts and guaranteed under international covenants or the Constitution.
Observations of the Court
Rejecting the appellant’s contention, the Court referred to clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, which defines “human rights” as “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.”
Noting the factual matrix, the Court observed:
“The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking.”
The Court narrated that the complainant had visited the police station with his parents to lodge a complaint. The Sub-Inspector refused to accept it on the ground that the matter involved multiple locations and said he would only accept it after the Inspector saw it. Later, when the complainant’s mother attempted to contact the Inspector (appellant), he cut the call and subsequently used “very objectionable language” upon meeting them in person at 8:30 p.m.
Emphasizing the dignity of citizens in the criminal justice process, the Court remarked:
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the appellant amounted to a violation of human rights, as rightly found by the State Commission and the High Court. It declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the appeal.
“No interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order,” the Court concluded.
