The Supreme Court recently emphasized that every person who visits a police station to report a crime must be treated with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court was hearing a case involving a Tamil Nadu police inspector who refused to register a complaint and behaved in an unacceptable manner with the complainant’s mother.
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, supported the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission's (SHRC) decision to impose a cost of ₹2 lakh on the state, recoverable from the concerned police inspector, Pavul Yesu Dhasan. The SHRC had found that he not only refused to file an FIR but also used objectionable language during the incident.
“Every citizen of India who goes to the police station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with dignity. That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Supreme Court observed.
The incident occurred at Srivilliputhur police station, where the complainant and his parents went to file a complaint about alleged cheating and embezzlement worth ₹13 lakh. Initially, the sub-inspector declined to accept the complaint without the inspector’s approval and shared his contact number. The complainant’s mother then spoke with the inspector over the phone.
Read Also:- Delay Not A Ground To Quash FIR In Serious Offences, Says Supreme Court
Later that day, around 5:00 PM, the complainant returned to the police station and was told to wait for the inspector’s arrival. The inspector reached around 8:30 PM but refused to file the FIR and reportedly used indecent language while addressing the complainant's mother.
“Very objectionable language was used by the petitioner to talk to the respondent's mother,” the Court noted while referencing the SHRC’s judgment.
The SHRC directed the Additional Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu’s Home Department to pay ₹2 lakh in compensation to the complainant and recover it from the inspector. The inspector challenged this order, along with a Madras High Court ruling that had upheld it.
The inspector’s counsel argued that even if he had refused to register the FIR, it did not amount to a human rights violation. However, the Court disagreed, citing Section 2(1)(d) of the Human Rights Act, which defines human rights as rights concerning life, liberty, equality, and dignity.
“The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking… All that respondent wanted is registration of First Information Report… Petitioner being 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 respondent's mother,” the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Civil Suit Alone No Ground to Quash FIR in Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court upheld both the SHRC and High Court findings, declaring that there was a clear violation of human rights and no interference was needed.
“Looking into the conduct of the petitioner, it was rightly found by the Commission and by the High Court that there was violation of human rights on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed,” the Court concluded.
Case: Pavul Yesu Dhasan vs. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu SLP(C) No. 20028/2022 Diary No. 33406 / 2022
