The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (TNSHRC) imposing ₹2 lakh penalty on a police inspector who refused to register a first information report (FIR) in a case and also subjected the complainant to verbal abuse at the police station.
directing the State government to pay ₹2 lakh compensation
recoverable from the erring police inspector to a citizen who was denied registration of an FIR and subjected to verbal abuse at a police station.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the inspector apart from not registering the FIR despite a cognizable offence being disclosed to him, also used objectionable language with the complainant's mother.
It held that these actions of the inspector were violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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 Court said.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Pavul Yesu Dhasan, the then Inspector of Police at Srivilliputhur, challenging the SHRC’s order as well as a Madras High Court judgment that had upheld the same.
The SHRC had directed the State government to pay ₹2 lakh compensation to the victim recoverable from the erring police inspector.
According to the complainant, he had visited the Srivilliputhur police station with his parents to lodge a complaint of alleged cheating and embezzlement amounting to ₹13 lakh. The sub-inspector declined to receive the complaint, citing procedural constraints, and directed the complainant to contact the inspector (petitioner).
Later that evening, when the complainant returned to the police station, he was again denied registration of the FIR after waiting hours for the inspector’s arrival. Upon insistence, the inspector reportedly used abusive language with the complainant's mother.
The SHRC, following its inquiry, concluded that the officer had not only refused to act on the complaint but had also used filthy language towards the complainant’s mother thereby violating her dignity.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that even if the inspector had refused to register an FIR, such refusal could not be considered a violation of human rights. The Court, however, rejected this line of argument.
"The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking. All that the respondent wanted was registration of a First Information Report. The law is well settled… Petitioner being senior officer ought to have immediately registered the First Information Report. However, not only he refused to do it but used very objectionable language while talking to the respondent’s mother,” the Court observed.
It reiterated that the right to be treated with dignity is an essential component of Article 21 and falls squarely within the definition of human rights under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Finding no fault with the SHRC’s findings or the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
[Read Judgement]