Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Pavul Yesu Dhasan – Appellant
Versus
Registrar State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factors leading to the human rights violation. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. argument regarding definition of human rights. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning about police conduct and rights. (Para 5 , 9) |
ORDER :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu passed an order directing the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the third respondent-complainant. Liberty was granted to the Additional Chief Secretary to recover the said amount from the present appellant who was the Inspector of Police attached to Srivilliputhur Town Police Station (Crime) Virthunagar District, Tamil Nadu. After holding an inquiry, the State Human Rights Commission found not only that the appellant refused to register a First Information Report (for short “FIR”) but used filthy language while talking to the respondent’s mother.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that assuming that the appellant declined to register FIR, it will not amount to viola
The refusal to register an FIR constitutes a violation of human rights, guaranteeing the dignity of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Allegations of human rights violations must be substantiated by evidence; mere claims without corroboration do not establish a violation.
Police officials must adhere to lawful procedures in arrest and detention; failure to do so constitutes a violation of human rights.
The court upheld the State Human Rights Commission's findings of police misconduct, confirming the need for law enforcement to respect citizens' rights and the burden of proof on the accused to dispr....
Police officer's improper involvement in investigation due to conflict confirmed; compensation upheld but disciplinary action waived due to provocation and time lapse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence supporting the violation of human rights and the proper closure of complaints after due enquiry.
The findings of a human rights commission can be quashed if they lack proper evaluation of evidence and procedural adherence.
The closure of a criminal investigation as a 'mistake of fact' does not constitute a violation of 'human rights' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Sta....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
