Full Judgment Text
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
Reason:
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station (Crime) Virthunagar
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
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
Reason:
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station (Crime) Virthunagar
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