PAVUL YESU DHASAN V. THE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU & ORS 2025 INSC 677:

DATE: 30/04/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS:

In this case, the third respondent, accompanied by his parents, approached the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station in Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu, seeking to lodge a complaint regarding a matter involving multiple locations. The complaint was initially handed over to a Sub-Inspector, who declined to register the FIR, stating that since the incident involved three different places, it could only be processed after review by the Inspector of Police. He further informed them that the Inspector was unavailable at that time and provided the Inspector’s mobile number instead. The third respondent’s mother later attempted to contact the Inspector—who was the appellant in this case—but the call was abruptly disconnected. Following this, the complainant and his family returned to the police station at around 5:00 p.m., where they waited until the Inspector arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Upon his arrival, the appellant-Inspector not only refused to register the FIR but also reportedly used highly offensive and abusive language toward the complainant’s mother, which was explicitly noted by the State Human Rights Commission. Despite the complainant’s legitimate request to register a case, both the Sub-Inspector and the appellant failed to act in accordance with established legal norms. The Commission held that this conduct amounted to a violation of the complainant’s human rights, particularly the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directed the State to pay ₹2,00,000 in compensation to the complainant, with liberty to recover the amount from the appellant. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that denial of basic police services and the use of abusive language by a public officer violated the fundamental rights of the citizen.

ISSUES:

The key issues in this case were whether the refusal by the appellant-Inspector to register an FIR, despite a valid complaint, and his use of abusive language towards the complainant’s mother, amounted to a violation of human rights as defined under Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court also considered whether such conduct breached the complainant’s right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the State Human Rights Commission was justified in awarding compensation to the complainant with liberty to recover the amount from the officer responsible.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the police officer, upholding the decision of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and the High Court. The Court affirmed that the officer's refusal to register the FIR and the use of objectionable language against the complainant’s mother amounted to a violation of human rights, justifying the award of Rs.2,00,000 in compensation, recoverable from the appellant.

The Court emphasized that under Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993, human rights include rights related to life, liberty, equality, and dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution. It held that when a citizen approaches a police station to report a crime, they are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. In this case, not only did the Sub-Inspector fail to register the FIR, but the Inspector—the appellant—also refused to take action and used abusive language towards the complainant’s mother. The Court found this conduct unacceptable, especially from a senior police officer, and stated that it violated the fundamental rights of the complainant and his family under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further noted that denial of the basic legal right to register a complaint, combined with the offensive and humiliating behavior exhibited by a public servant, undermines the principles of justice and human dignity. It rejected the appellant’s argument that failure to register an FIR does not amount to a human rights violation, reiterating that the right to access legal redress and be treated respectfully by authorities is integral to the constitutional guarantee of dignity. The Commission's finding of misconduct and the imposition of personal liability were deemed appropriate, considering the seriousness of the appellant’s actions. Hence, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the compensation order as a necessary remedy for the violation suffered.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the critical role of police accountability in upholding constitutional rights, particularly the right to dignity under Article 21. The conduct of the police officers—specifically the refusal to register an FIR and the use of abusive language—demonstrates a blatant disregard for the legal obligations of law enforcement and the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court's ruling reinforces the principle that public officials, especially those in positions of authority, must act within the bounds of law and treat every complainant with fairness and respect. The judgment establishes that failure to perform statutory duties and engaging in demeaning conduct can amount to a human rights violation under the Human Rights Act, 1993.

The Supreme Court's affirmation of the Human Rights Commission’s decision also sets an important precedent for personal liability in cases of official misconduct. By upholding the Commission’s directive to recover the compensation amount from the offending officer, the Court signals a shift towards stricter enforcement of accountability measures within the police force. It underscores that immunity in public service does not extend to abuses of power or procedural lapses that compromise citizen rights. This ruling serves as both a deterrent and a guiding standard, emphasizing that the dignity of individuals seeking justice must be protected as an inseparable part of their constitutional freedoms.