Supreme Court clarifies criteria for appointment in disciplined forces despite acquittal: Union of India vs. Methu Meda (2021)

Date of the Judgment: October 6, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 706

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Can an individual, acquitted in a criminal case due to witnesses turning hostile, claim an automatic right to employment in a disciplined force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the extent to which prior criminal charges impact eligibility for government jobs, particularly in forces like the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Court’s ruling clarifies that an acquittal, especially when it’s not ‘honourable,’ does not guarantee employment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

The respondent, Methu Meda, was implicated in a kidnapping case for ransom, leading to an FIR registered on August 22, 2009. He faced charges under Sections 347, 327, 323, 506 (Part II), and 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Sessions Court acquitted him as the complainant turned hostile. Subsequently, Meda applied for a Constable position in the CISF and was provisionally selected on March 30, 2012. His appointment was conditional on submitting required documents, including attestation forms and character certificates. Meda disclosed the criminal case and his acquittal in the attestation form.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) did not allow Meda to join training, citing CISF Circular No. E-EG7023/TRG.SEC/ADM.I/CIRCULARS/2010-1157 dated 31.03.2010, and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 01.02.2012. Meda’s case was reviewed by a Standing Screening Committee, which deemed him ineligible for appointment on 15.10.2012. Aggrieved, Meda filed Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. A Single Judge allowed the petition on 27.09.2013, directing the CISF to send Meda for training with consequential benefits, but denied back wages. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal against this order, leading to the present appeal by the Union of India before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several key legal concepts and precedents to address the issue of whether an acquittal in a criminal case automatically qualifies a person for employment, particularly in a disciplined force. The court noted that the terms ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’, and ‘fully acquitted’ are not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. These terms have been judicially developed to differentiate between acquittals based on merit and those based on technicalities or lack of evidence.

The Court also considered the following:

• CISF Circular No. E-EG7023/TRG.SEC/ADM.I/CIRCULARS/2010-1157 dated 31.03.2010: This circular specifies that candidates involved in any criminal case, whether finalized or pending, may not be allowed to join without further instructions from headquarters.

• Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines dated 01.02.2012: These guidelines provide a framework for considering cases of candidates with registered or tried criminal cases.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that merely disclosing a criminal case in the attestation form is not sufficient. According to the Policy Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, individuals involved in heinous offenses like those under Sections 327, 347, and 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are not eligible for appointment unless they are honourably acquitted.

• They contended that the respondent’s acquittal was not ‘honourable’ but rather a result of witnesses turning hostile. Therefore, it does not automatically qualify him for appointment. The appellants relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733, State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena 2021(4) SCALE 634, and Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar 2021(9) SCALE 713, to support their claim that an acquittal is not conclusive for suitability for appointment.

• The appellants emphasized that the High Court’s orders were contrary to established law, which requires a candidate to be honourably acquitted to be eligible for appointment, especially in a disciplined force.

Respondent’s Arguments (Methu Meda):

• The respondent argued that the High Court had correctly considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rahul Yadav vs CISF and another, 178 (2011) DLT 263, which emphasized the relevance of the candidate’s background, particularly those from rural areas. The respondent also cited Panna Mehta vs. State of M.P. (2002) 4 M.P.H.T. 226, stating that if a candidate discloses all material facts about a criminal case, trial, and its result, they should not be disqualified.

• The respondent contended that since he had disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form, and was acquitted, he should not be denied appointment. He also pointed out that a similarly situated person, Ramesh, had been sent for training by the Bombay High Court.

• The respondent argued that the High Court’s order was in conformity with the law, as he had not concealed any material facts and had been acquitted by a competent court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the decision of the Screening Committee, rejecting the respondent’s candidature despite his acquittal on serious charges (including kidnapping for ransom), should have been interfered with, especially when there were no allegations of malice against the committee and the acquittal was due to prosecution witnesses turning hostile.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several judgments and legal provisions to arrive at its decision. These can be categorized by the legal points they address:

Meaning of ‘Honourable Acquittal’:

• State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, (1972) 7 SLR 44 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the term ‘honourably acquitted’ in the context of Assam Fundamental Rules, highlighting that it is not a term found in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It referred to Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor, (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, where it was observed that “honourably acquitted” is a term used in courts martial and extra-judicial tribunals.

• R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that even in cases of acquittal, proceedings may follow if the acquittal is not ‘honourable’.

• Inspector General of Police & Another vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 (Supreme Court of India): This case distinguished between the standards of proof in criminal courts and departmental inquiries, stating that an acquittal due to lack of evidence or hostile witnesses does not equate to an honourable acquittal. It also referred to Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994)1 SCC 541.

• Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797 (Supreme Court of India): Reiterated that an acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of a candidate’s suitability.

• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 (Supreme Court of India): Held that non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not an honourable acquittal, and the nature of acquittal is necessary for consideration.

• Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar 2021(9) SCALE 713 (Supreme Court of India): Reaffirmed the principles laid down in Mehar Singh (supra).

Effect of Acquittal and Concealment of Criminal Cases on Appointments:

• Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Supreme Court of India): This three-judge bench decision laid down guidelines regarding the effect of conviction, acquittal, or arrest on employment. It specified that employers can consider the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the acquittal, and the candidate’s antecedents, even if the candidate has disclosed the criminal case.

Other Cases Cited by the Respondent:

• Rahul Yadav vs CISF and another, 178 (2011) DLT 263 (Delhi High Court): This case emphasized the relevance of the candidate’s background, particularly those from rural areas. However, the Supreme Court did not find this case persuasive in the present context.

• Panna Mehta vs. State of M.P., (2002) 4 M.P.H.T. 226 (Madhya Pradesh High Court): This case stated that if a candidate discloses all material facts about a criminal case, trial, and its result, they should not be disqualified. This was distinguished by the Supreme Court on the facts of the present case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court. The Court held that the Screening Committee’s decision to reject Meda’s candidature was valid. The Court emphasized that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt or due to hostile witnesses does not automatically entitle a candidate to employment, especially in disciplined forces. The employer has the right to consider the candidate’s antecedents, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the acquittal.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari [(1972) 7 SLR 44]: The Court used this case to highlight that the term “honourable acquittal” is not a term defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code, and it is a judicial development.

• R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that even after an acquittal, proceedings can follow if the acquittal is not honourable.

• Inspector General of Police & Another vs. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598]: The Court relied on this case to distinguish between the standards of proof in criminal courts and departmental inquiries, and to clarify that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not equate to an honourable acquittal.

• Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. [(2018) 1 SCC 797]: The Court used this case to reiterate that an acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of a candidate’s suitability for employment.

• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the nature of the acquittal is necessary for consideration and that an acquittal due to hostile witnesses is not an honourable acquittal.

• Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar [2021(9) SCALE 713]: The Court referred to this case to reaffirm the principles laid down in Mehar Singh (supra).

• Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others [(2016) 8 SCC 471]: The Court used this case to establish the guidelines regarding the effect of conviction, acquittal, or arrest on employment, emphasizing the employer’s right to consider antecedents even if the candidate has disclosed the criminal case.

• Rahul Yadav vs CISF and another [178 (2011) DLT 263]: The Court did not find this case persuasive in the present context.

• Panna Mehta vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 4 M.P.H.T. 226]: The Court distinguished this case on the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and discipline of the police force. The Court emphasized that individuals seeking employment in such forces must have impeccable character and integrity. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• Nature of Acquittal: The Court focused on the fact that the respondent’s acquittal was not ‘honourable’ but rather due to the prosecution witnesses turning hostile. This indicated that the respondent was not exonerated on merit but was given the benefit of doubt.

• Policy Considerations: The Court considered the policy guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the CISF, which specify that candidates involved in serious criminal cases should not be considered for recruitment unless they are honourably acquitted.

• Precedents: The Court relied on several precedents, particularly Avtar Singh and Mehar Singh, which established that an acquittal is not conclusive for suitability for appointment, especially in disciplined forces.

• Discipline and Integrity: The Court stressed that the police force requires individuals of utmost rectitude and integrity, and those with criminal antecedents, even if acquitted, may not be suitable. The Court also highlighted the importance of the Screening Committee’s role in ensuring that only suitable candidates are selected.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the respondent had disclosed the criminal case, but clarified that this does not negate the employer’s right to assess suitability. The Court also rejected the argument that a similarly situated person had been sent for training, stating that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the outcome and reasoning.

“The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence.”

“A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category.”

“Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force.”

Key Takeaways

• An acquittal in a criminal case, particularly if it is not an ‘honourable acquittal’ (e.g., due to witnesses turning hostile), does not automatically entitle a candidate to employment, especially in disciplined forces.

• Employers, especially in disciplined forces, have the right to consider the candidate’s antecedents, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the acquittal.

• Disclosure of a criminal case in the attestation form is necessary but not sufficient; the employer can still assess the candidate’s suitability based on the details of the case.

• The Screening Committee’s decision is final unless it is mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations.

• The standards for employment in disciplined forces are high, requiring candidates to have impeccable character and integrity.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the orders of the High Court and upholding the decision of the Screening Committee.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an acquittal in a criminal case, particularly when it is not an ‘honourable acquittal’ due to hostile witnesses or benefit of doubt, does not automatically entitle a candidate to employment in a disciplined force. This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the right to assess a candidate’s suitability based on their antecedents and the nature of the acquittal, especially in professions requiring high standards of integrity and discipline. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous position of law as laid down in Avtar Singh and Mehar Singh.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Methu Meda clarifies that an acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee employment in disciplined forces, especially when the acquittal is not ‘honourable’. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of such forces and upheld the employer’s right to consider the antecedents and circumstances of the acquittal. This ruling reinforces the principle that individuals seeking employment in disciplined forces must demonstrate impeccable character and integrity.