Is a refusal to register an FIR a violation of human rights?

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — s.2(d) — Constitution of India, Art. 21 — Dignity of a complainant — Registration of FIR —

Held: Every citizen who approaches a police station to report the commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity, which is his fundamental right under Article 21; he must not be treated like a criminal, and a refusal to register the FIR coupled with the use of objectionable language violates the right to dignity. (¶8)

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — s.2(d) — "Human rights" — Violation by a police officer —

Held further: The conduct of the senior officer in refusing to register the FIR despite the settled law, and using very objectionable language to the complainant's mother, squarely falls within the violation of "human rights" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act — the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution. (¶7, 9)

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — Compensation — Disposition —

Held further: The State Human Rights Commission and the High Court rightly found a violation of human rights, and no interference is called for with the direction to pay compensation, recoverable from the appellant. Appeal dismissed. (¶3, 9)

Is a refusal to register an FIR a violation of human rights?

Yes, where it is coupled with treating the complainant without dignity. A senior officer's refusal to register the FIR and use of objectionable language violated the complainant's right to dignity under Article 21 and Section 2(d) of the Act. [¶7, ¶8]

How does the Court define the citizen's entitlement at a police station?

Every citizen who goes to a police station to report an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21, and must not be treated like a criminal. [¶8]

Was the compensation direction disturbed?

No. The Commission and the High Court having rightly found a violation of human rights, the direction to pay compensation, recoverable from the appellant, was left undisturbed and the appeal dismissed. [¶9]

“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. He stated that the Inspector was not likely to come to the Police Station on that day. Therefore, he gave a cell phone number of the Inspector to the respondent. The third respondent’s mother on the same day tried to contact the present appellant who was the Inspector of Police. After talking to the third respondent’s mother, the appellant cut off the phone call. Therefore, as per the instructions received, the third respondent with his parents again visited the Police Station at 5.00 p.m. They were asked to wait till arrival of the appellant who was the Inspector of Police. Ultimately, he arrived at 8.30 p.m. Very objectionable language was used by the appellant while talking to the third respondent’s mother which is noted in paragraph (4) of the impugned judgment of the State Human Rights Commission. ”

“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. ”

“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. ”