Supreme Court of India
PAVUL YESU DHASAN versus THE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
- Decided
- 30 April 2025
- Judges listed
- ABHAY S. OKA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2549 · 2025 INSC 677
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 2550
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
p. 2550
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 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.
pp. 2550–2551
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.
p. 2551
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;
p. 2551
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.
p. 2551
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 to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the third respondent’s mother.
pp. 2551–2552
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.
p. 2552
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
p. 2552