The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (TNSHRC), directing the State government to pay ₹2 lakh in compensation—recoverable from a police inspector—for refusing to register a First Information Report (FIR) and verbally abusing a complainant’s mother at a police station.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the inspector not only failed to register an FIR despite a cognizable offence being disclosed but also used "objectionable language" towards the complainant’s mother, thereby violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Every citizen of India who goes to a police station to report the 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 ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Pavul Yesu Dhasan, who was serving as the Inspector of Police at Srivilliputhur at the time of the incident. He had challenged both the TNSHRC’s compensation order and a subsequent Madras High Court decision that upheld it.

According to the complainant, he had approached the Srivilliputhur police station with his parents to file a complaint regarding cheating and embezzlement involving ₹13 lakh. The sub-inspector initially refused to accept the complaint and referred him to the inspector. When the complainant returned later that evening, he was again denied registration of the FIR despite waiting several hours. Upon insisting on filing the complaint, the inspector allegedly used abusive language towards his mother.

The SHRC, after conducting an inquiry, found that the inspector had failed in his duty to register the FIR and had also humiliated the complainant’s mother with “filthy” language, thereby infringing on her dignity and human rights.

While the inspector’s counsel argued that the refusal to file an FIR does not amount to a human rights violation, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention.

“The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking. All that the respondent wanted was the registration of an FIR. The law is well settled... As a senior officer, the petitioner should have immediately registered the complaint. Instead, he refused and used highly objectionable language toward the respondent’s mother,” the Court noted.

The Court reaffirmed that the right to dignity is a fundamental facet of Article 21 and falls within the ambit of "human rights" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Finding no merit in the inspector’s appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the compensation order issued by the SHRC and sustained by the High Court.