Supreme Court: Using Abusive Language Against Citizen Who Comes To Police Station To Lodge FIR Constitutes Violation Of Human Rights

The Court upheld an Order by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, directing the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakhs to a Complainant. The compensation was initially ordered due to the refusal of the Appellant, an Inspector of Police, to register an (FIR and the use of filthy language towards the Complainant’s mother.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that “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.”

Advocate PV Yogeswaran represented the Appellant, while AOR R Shase appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Complainant had visited the Police Station with his parents to lodge a complaint. A Sub-Inspector of Police informed them that the FIR could not be accepted until the Inspector of Police reviewed it, and that the Inspector was unlikely to be available that day. The Complainant’s mother later contacted the Appellant, who allegedly cut off the phone call after speaking with her.

The Complainant and his parents returned to the Police Station and waited until 8:30 p.m. for the Appellant to arrive, during which the Appellant used very objectionable language towards the third Complainant’s mother.

The State Human Rights Commission, after conducting an inquiry, found that the Appellant not only refused to register the FIR but also used abusive language.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court remarked, “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.”

“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 same and he could receive the same only after the Inspector of Police looks at it,” the bench noted.

Consequently, the Court held, “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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 677)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates P V Yogeswaran, Ram Sankar, Harini Ramsankar, Y Lokesh and Ashish Kumar Upadhyay

Respondent: AOR R. Shase and Sabarish Subramanian; Advocate Balaji Thiagaragan, Sibi Kargil, Vishnu Unnikrishnan and Danish Saifi

Click here to read/download the Order