When Dignity Enters the Police Station: The Landmark Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu
Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India has once again emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is not an empty phrase, but a living guarantee of dignity and respect for every citizen. In its judgment in Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (SLP(C) No. 20028/2022, decided on April 30, 2025), the Court established a strong link between citizens' encounters with the police and their fundamental human rights.
In doing so, the Court not only upheld the compensation order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), but also set an important precedent: any citizen who goes to a police station to report a crime must be treated with respect – and any deviation from that standard is a violation of human rights.
This case is an important step towards redefining the accountability of law enforcement officials and expanding the framework of human rights protection in India.
📚Background: A visit to a police station that became a human rights case
The complainant, accompanied by her mother, went to the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station in Tamil Nadu to file an FIR. She alleged that a sub-inspector refused to register the FIR, stating that the incident occurred in three different areas and therefore did not fully fall within the jurisdiction of his police station.
When the complainant's mother called the police inspector (appellant, Pavul Yesu Dhasan), he allegedly abruptly hung up. Later, when the complainant and her mother went to the police station again at around 5 p.m., they had to wait until approximately 8:30 p.m. for the inspector to arrive.
When the inspector finally arrived, he allegedly used filthy and abusive language toward the complainant's mother, publicly humiliating her. The entire experience left the complainant feeling extremely humiliated and helpless.
Feeling that her dignity had been violated, she filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC).
🔰Findings of the State Human Rights Commission
After a detailed investigation, the SHRC found the allegations to be true. The Commission concluded that the police officer not only refused to perform his legal duty to register a cognizable offense, but also used offensive and insulting language toward a citizen seeking justice.
Exercising its powers under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the SHRC directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the complainant, with liberty to recover the amount from the erring official.
The officer challenged the decision in the Madras High Court, which refused to intervene. He then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP).
🎦Issues before the Supreme Court
Issues before the Supreme Court:-
- Does refusing to register an FIR and using abusive language constitute a “violation of human rights”?
- Do such actions fall under the right to dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Can the State Human Rights Commission direct the concerned officer to pay the compensation recoverable?
Observations of the Supreme Court
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment on 30 April 2025, conclusively confirming the SHRC order.
Dignity is at the core of Article 21
The Court began by reaffirming that the concept of "human rights" as defined under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 includes rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution.
The bench said:
Every citizen of India who goes to a police station to report a crime should be treated with respect. This is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This observation lies at the heart of the decision. The Court emphasized that going to the police station is not a favor granted by the state to its citizens—it is a fundamental part of the right to access justice. Therefore, any conduct that humiliates or insults a person during this process is a violation of human rights.
🌎 Also Read :
Refusal to register an FIR is not merely a procedural lapse
The Court further stated that the refusal to register a cognizable offence cannot be considered a mere procedural error. It is a failure of duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the registration of an FIR upon the disclosure of a cognizable offence.
When such refusal is accompanied by humiliating or insulting treatment, it amounts to a human rights violation.
Abuse and humiliation are violations of human rights
The Court described the officer's conduct—making the complainant and her mother wait for hours and using abusive language—as humiliating and insulting behavior that violated the complainant's right to dignity.
The bench stated that such conduct "strike[s] the very foundation of the relationship between the citizen and the State." A police officer, entrusted with the duty to protect citizens' rights, cannot act in a manner that undermines their sense of security or self-respect.
Upholding the powers and compensation order of the SHRC
The Supreme Court upheld the State Human Rights Commission's order awarding compensation of ₹2 lakh. Importantly, it upheld the validity of the recovery from the erring official and emphasized that public servants can be held personally accountable for human rights violations committed in the course of their duties.
The Court noted that monetary compensation serves as a remedy for the victim and a deterrent to future misconduct.
Legal Analysis: Linking Human Rights and Police Accountability
Expanding the meaning of human rights:
- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines human rights as “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution.”
- By interpreting dignity as a central component of police-citizen interactions, the Court has expanded the scope of human rights enforcement in everyday governance.
- This case transforms routine abuses by police officers—often dismissed as minor administrative lapses—into matters of constitutional and human rights concern.
Human dignity as the core of Article 21
- Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently included dignity within the meaning of "life" under Article 21—from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to Francis Coralie Mullin, and more recently in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy Case).
- Pavul Yesu Dhasan carried forward this legacy, arguing that dignity should not be lost at the threshold of a police station.
- The message is clear: access to the criminal justice system should not come at the expense of one's self-respect.
Police conduct and human rights jurisdiction
- Traditionally, police misconduct was dealt with through departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution. The decision in the Pawul Yeshu Dhasan case confirms that such conduct also falls within the jurisdiction of human rights commissions, which can provide civil remedies such as compensation.
- This creates a powerful new avenue for citizens to seek redress, and avoids the procedural delays associated with internal disciplinary mechanisms.
Principle of personal accountability
- The decision to recover compensation from each officer adds a new dimension to public accountability. Instead of considering the state the sole bearer of responsibility, the Court places moral and financial responsibility on the officer whose conduct violated the law.
- This principle is reminiscent of earlier decisions where courts held officers personally accountable for illegal detention, custodial deaths, or wrongful prosecution—but here it is extended to verbal abuse and insults.
Broader implications of the decision
Changes in police-citizen relations
For decades, police stations in India have been places where many citizens—especially those from vulnerable communities—approach with fear and hesitation. This decision could help change this perception.
By judicially recognizing dignity as a fundamental right within the police sphere, the Court has imposed a moral and legal obligation on the police to treat every complainant with courtesy and respect.
Strengthening the role of human rights commissions
This decision reinforces the importance and relevance of State Human Rights Commissions, which are often dismissed as powerless entities. By upholding their authority to award and recover compensation, the Supreme Court has empowered them to act as meaningful protectors of civil rights.
Guiding administrative reforms
Police departments across India will no longer consider abusive or arbitrary behavior as mere indiscipline. Training, monitoring, and sensitization programs must emphasize human rights standards in daily policing.
This decision should prompt Home Departments and Directorates General of Police to issue circulars reinforcing respect, empathy, and professionalism as core to police duty.
Setting a precedent for future cases
This case will likely influence future decisions on the following:
- Refusal to register an FIR,
- Disrespectful treatment of complainants,
- Gender- or caste-based insults, and
- Delay or neglect in resolving citizen complaints.
Legal reasoning makes it clear that such actions are not only administrative wrongs but also constitutional harms, requiring compensation and accountability.
Criticism and reflection
While this decision is a welcome step, it has also sparked debate on the scope and sustainability of human rights enforcement in policing.
Where does a person draw their limits?
Should every delay in filing an FIR be considered a human rights violation? The Supreme Court's reasoning appears to hinge on both denial and abusive behavior. Future benches may have to clarify whether mere negligence—without abusive behavior—falls within this scope.
Implementation challenges
Despite judicial clarity, enforcement remains a challenge. Many citizens are unaware of the State Human Rights Commission's remedies, and bureaucratic hurdles often prevent them from taking action. The success of this precedent will depend on public awareness and institutional support.
Symbolic versus systemic change
Compensation and accountability, while important, cannot alone reform policing culture. True change requires systemic change—one that includes training, transparency, independent oversight, and perhaps most importantly, empathy.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Dignity in the Justice Process
The Paul Yeshu Dhasan case is more than a judicial decision; it is a reaffirmation of India's constitutional values. It tells every citizen that the doors of justice should open with respect, not fear.
By upholding the SHRC's decision, the Supreme Court has not only upheld the complainant's rights but also sent a clear message: the exercise of state power should never take away an individual's self-respect.
In an age where trust in institutions is often eroded, this decision reminds us that the Constitution's promise of dignity is not limited to statute books—it must also be realized in the everyday interactions between citizens and the state.
When a citizen goes to a police station seeking justice, the state should treat them not with arrogance or abuse, but with empathy, respect, and humanity.
After all, this is what the Supreme Court has reminded us – that dignity is the primary right of every human being, and the police station, like the court, is a place where dignity must be protected above all else.
Welcome to the lexedge, please don't spam in comments.