Summary
A police Inspector challenged a State Human Rights Commission order, upheld by the High Court, directing compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to a complainant (recoverable from him) for refusing to register an FIR and abusing the complainant's mother. The Supreme Court held that a citizen who comes to a police station to report an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity under Article 21, so the refusal and abusive conduct did violate human rights under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether a police officer's refusal to register an FIR, coupled with abusive language towards the complainant's family, amounts to a violation of 'human rights' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(d), Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993The Court read the definition of 'human rights' as covering rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution, and held that the complainant's right to be treated with dignity when reporting an offence fell within it; the officer's refusal to register the FIR and his abusive language therefore violated human rights. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaEvery citizen who goes to a police station to report the commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity; this is a fundamental right under Article 21, and such a person must not be treated like a criminal. (¶ 8)
Held
- The argument that declining to register an FIR cannot amount to a violation of human rights was rejected. A citizen who approaches a police station to report an offence has a fundamental right under Article 21 to be treated with human dignity and must not be treated like a criminal; that right falls within the definition of 'human rights' in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. (¶¶ 4, 8)
- On the facts, the complainant and his parents were made to wait for hours, the Sub-Inspector declined to accept the complaint, and the appellant, a senior officer who ought to have registered the FIR immediately, not only refused to do so but used very objectionable language to the complainant's mother. The Commission and the High Court rightly found a violation of human rights by the appellant, and no interference was called for. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9)
Result
Leave granted; appeal dismissed. The order of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, as affirmed by the High Court, directing payment of Rs. 2,00,000 compensation to the complainant with liberty to recover it from the appellant, stands.