Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Human Rights Violation Due to FIR Refusal: Pavul Yesu Dhasan vs. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission (2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 677
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

When a citizen approaches a police station to report a crime, should they be treated with dignity? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the refusal to register a First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent use of objectionable language by a police officer. The Court upheld the decision of the State Human Rights Commission, emphasizing that every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated with human dignity when reporting a crime. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, forming the bench, dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the importance of upholding human rights within the criminal justice system.

Case Background

The case originated when the third respondent, along with his parents, visited the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station in Tamil Nadu to lodge a complaint. The Sub-Inspector of Police initially refused to accept the complaint, stating that it required the Inspector of Police’s review, who was unlikely to be present that day. The third respondent was given the Inspector’s cell phone number and instructed to contact him.

The third respondent’s mother contacted the Inspector of Police, the present appellant, who abruptly ended the call. Following these instructions, the third respondent and his parents returned to the police station at 5:00 p.m. and waited until the Inspector, the appellant, arrived at 8:30 p.m. The appellant allegedly used highly objectionable language while speaking to the third respondent’s mother.

Despite the complainant’s persistence, the appellant refused to register an FIR based on the complaint. The State Human Rights Commission, after conducting an inquiry, found the appellant guilty of refusing to register the FIR and using offensive language. The Commission directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the third respondent, with the liberty to recover the amount from the appellant.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the definition of “human rights” as defined under Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993. This section states:

“(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.”

Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court noted that every citizen who reports a crime deserves to be treated with human dignity, which is a fundamental aspect of Article 21.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument:

• The appellant argued that even if he declined to register the FIR, it would not constitute a violation of human rights as defined under Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

Respondent’s Argument:

• The respondent contended that the refusal to register the FIR and the use of objectionable language by the appellant violated the fundamental rights of the complainant and his parents, thereby constituting a human rights violation.
• The respondent emphasized that every citizen has the right to be treated with dignity when reporting a crime, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the refusal to register an FIR and the use of objectionable language by a police officer constitute a violation of human rights under Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provision:

• Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993: Defined the scope of “human rights.”
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to be treated with dignity.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the fundamental right of every citizen to be treated with dignity, especially when reporting a crime. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the police officer in refusing to register the FIR and using objectionable language was a clear violation of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• Police officers must treat all citizens with dignity, especially when they come to report a crime.
• Refusal to register an FIR and use of objectionable language can be considered a violation of human rights.
• The State Human Rights Commission has the authority to direct compensation in cases of human rights violations by public servants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to be treated with human dignity is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and any act that violates this right, such as refusing to register an FIR and using objectionable language, constitutes a human rights violation. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and emphasizes the importance of upholding human dignity within the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

In the case of Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the State Human Rights Commission, emphasizing that every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated with human dignity when reporting a crime. The Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the importance of upholding human rights within the criminal justice system and ensuring that police officers treat all citizens with respect and dignity.