Pavul Yesu Dhasan vs The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu

2025 INSC 677 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6358 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.20028 of 2022)

PAVUL YESU DHASAN ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

THE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.13 19:03:24 IST Srivilliputhur Town Police Station (Crime) Virthunagar Reason: Page 1 of 4 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

Page 2 of 4 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 to do it but used very objectionable language,

while talking to the third respondent’s mother.

Page 3 of 4

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.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

April 30, 2025

Page 4 of 4