Supreme Court Denies Constable Job to Acquitted Accused: State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 24, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 158

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a person acquitted of serious criminal charges, but given the benefit of doubt, be denied a government job? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a police constable in Rajasthan. The court examined whether an acquittal based on a benefit of doubt is equivalent to a clean acquittal. This judgment clarifies the criteria for suitability in public service appointments, particularly for those with past criminal charges. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case involves Love Kush Meena, who was an accused in a criminal case related to an incident on October 6, 2008. According to the complainant, Babulal, Jagdish and Dayaram came to till a disputed field. Tofli, Babulal’s aunt, tried to stop them. Jagdish drove a tractor over Tofli, causing her death. When Babulal and others rushed to help, they were allegedly attacked by Dayaram, Love Kush (the respondent), Bodan, and Jagdish with knives. Tofli was declared dead at the hospital. The police registered a case under Sections 302, 341, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court acquitted the accused, including Love Kush Meena, giving them the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Love Kush Meena, applied for the position of a constable in the Rajasthan Police. Despite being successful in the recruitment process, he was denied appointment due to his involvement in the criminal case, even though he was acquitted. The Rajasthan High Court initially remitted the matter back to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider his candidature. However, the Superintendent of Police again found him ineligible. The High Court then ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that his acquittal, even if based on the benefit of doubt, should not disqualify him. The State of Rajasthan appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Regulations, 1989, and a circular issued by the Rajasthan Government on March 28, 2017. The advertisement for the constable posts specified that candidates who were not “honourably acquitted” of offences involving moral turpitude or violent activities would be disqualified. The circular of 2017 stated that candidates who were acquitted by the court, including by giving benefit of doubt, would be eligible for appointment. The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The relevant clause (ix) of the advertisement states:
“(ix) As per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.782/2004 State Government and others v. Mohd. Salim Dated 10.12.2009, Director General Police, Rajasthan Circular No.1687 dt.29.4.1995 is held legal. In compliance with the said judgment, only those candidates shall be qualified to appear in recruitment for Rajasthan police who- have not been convicted for offence of moral turpitude, violent activities and not honourably acquitted by Court.”

The relevant portion of the circular dated 28.03.2017 reads as under:
“Subject: Regarding the candidates deprived of appointment due to concealment of facts of criminal cases/being involved in criminal cases.
xxx xxxxxxxxx
Only those candidates of the following category are found to be eligible to be appointed, who have mentioned the criminal case in the application form or character verification form (both or one of them):-
1. Found not guilty of criminal case after investigation, Final/closure Report submitted for approval.
2. Acquitted by the Court (including by giving benefit of doubt or want of evidence).
3. Acquitted/discharged on the basis of compromise.
4. Given benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on conviction in certain sections (the conviction is not based on any impunity/no adverse effect on state service/future life).
5. Convicted and given benefit of Section 15(1)(a) of Juvenile Justice Act.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (State of Rajasthan):

• The State argued that the respondent’s acquittal was not “honourable” but based on a benefit of doubt, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
• They contended that the circular of 2017 should not be applied in isolation but in the context of judicial pronouncements which have held that “benefit of doubt” is not equivalent to “honourable acquittal”.
• The State relied on the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., which states that if an acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable doubt in a case involving moral turpitude or heinous crime, the employer may consider all relevant facts before deciding on the employee’s continuance.
• They argued that the nature of the offense was serious and involved violence, which makes the respondent unsuitable for police service.

Respondent’s Arguments (Love Kush Meena):

• The respondent argued that the circular dated March 28, 2017, explicitly states that candidates acquitted by the court, including those acquitted on the benefit of doubt, are eligible for appointment.
• He contended that the circular was applicable at the time of the decision of the authorities on May 23, 2017.
• The respondent argued that there was a time lapse between the alleged offense and the recruitment process, and he was a young man (19 years old) at the time of the incident.
• He referred to judgments of the Rajasthan High Court granting relief to candidates based on acquittal on benefit of doubt.
• He also referred to an order of the Supreme Court where an SLP was dismissed against a direction for appointment of a candidate where the order was giving benefit of doubt to the candidates in a criminal case.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the respondent in a case charged under Sections 302, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can create an opportunity for the respondent to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471, emphasizing that in cases of serious crimes, an acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not automatically qualify a candidate for employment.

✓ The Court also relied on Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797 and Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, to clarify that an acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment unless it is an “honourable acquittal”.

✓ The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733 and Commissioner of Police v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 to emphasize that the employer is entitled to take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charge levelled against the candidate and whether acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt as a result of composition.

✓ The Court relied on Anil Bharadwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 832 to emphasize that rejection of candidature could not be said to be unsustainable even if the candidate stood acquitted.

✓ The Court distinguished Joginder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh & Ors.) (2015) 2 SCC 377 and Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Civil Appeal No.10571/2018 on the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the acquittal in the criminal case. The Court emphasized that an acquittal based on a “benefit of doubt” is different from an “honourable acquittal” where the prosecution fails to prove the charges. The Court also considered the seriousness of the charges against the respondent, which involved violence and moral turpitude. The Court noted that the respondent’s acquittal was not due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the case, but rather due to the prosecution witnesses turning hostile, which was influenced by a compromise in respect of the compoundable offences. The Court also considered the judicial pronouncements that have held that “benefit of doubt” is not equivalent to “honourable acquittal”. The Court also considered the fact that the respondent was seeking appointment in the police force, which requires a high standard of integrity and clean antecedents. The Court also considered the fact that the circular of 2017 should not be applied in isolation but in the context of judicial pronouncements.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations rather than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s acquittal was not a clean acquittal, but rather one based on the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasized that the circular of 2017 should not be applied in isolation but in the context of judicial pronouncements. The Court noted that the nature of the offense was serious and involved violence, which makes the respondent unsuitable for police service. The Court held that the employer has the right to consider the suitability of the candidate, even after the disclosure is made by the candidate. The Court also held that the decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 was in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Court stated, “The judgment in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) on the relevant parameter extracted aforesaid clearly stipulates that where in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime the acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable doubt, that cannot make the candidate eligible.”

The Court also noted, “We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.”

The Court further observed, “However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.”

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, thus upholding the decision of the appellant authority dated 23.05.2017.

Key Takeaways

• An acquittal based on a “benefit of doubt” is not equivalent to an “honourable acquittal” for the purpose of government job eligibility.
• Employers can consider the nature and seriousness of the charges against a candidate, even if they have been acquitted.
• Circulars issued by the government must be interpreted in the context of existing judicial pronouncements.
• The police force requires a high standard of integrity and clean antecedents, and those acquitted with benefit of doubt may not be suitable for such positions.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but the effect of the judgment is that the order of the appellant authority dated 23.05.2017, which denied appointment to the respondent, stands upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not equivalent to an honourable acquittal and does not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment in government service, especially in sensitive positions like the police force. This judgment reinforces the principle that employers can consider the nature and seriousness of the charges against a candidate, even if they have been acquitted. The Supreme Court has clarified that the circulars issued by the government must be interpreted in the context of existing judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena clarifies that an acquittal based on a benefit of doubt does not automatically qualify a candidate for a government job, especially in law enforcement. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the acquittal, reinforcing the principle that employers can assess the suitability of candidates based on their past conduct, even if they have been acquitted. This judgment underscores the need for integrity and clean antecedents in public service, particularly in the police force.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Recruitment
• Disqualification
• Honourable Acquittal
• Benefit of Doubt
• Criminal Antecedents
• Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Regulations, 1989

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena case?

A: The main issue is whether a person acquitted of serious criminal charges with the benefit of doubt can be denied a government job, specifically as a police constable.

Q: What is the difference between “honourable acquittal” and acquittal based on “benefit of doubt”?

A: An “honourable acquittal” occurs when the prosecution fails to prove the charges against the accused, indicating the accused was likely innocent. An acquittal based on “benefit of doubt” means the court could not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt, but there was not enough evidence to prove their innocence either.

Q: Can a person with a criminal record get a government job?

A: It depends on the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the acquittal. If the acquittal is “honourable,” it may not be a barrier. However, if the acquittal is based on the “benefit of doubt,” the employer can consider the seriousness of the charges and the candidate’s suitability.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court held that an acquittal based on the “benefit of doubt” does not automatically qualify a candidate for a government job, especially in sensitive positions like the police force. The Court upheld the decision to deny appointment to Love Kush Meena.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies that employers can consider the nature of past criminal charges, even if the candidate has been acquitted, and that a “benefit of doubt” acquittal is not equivalent to an “honourable acquittal.” It reinforces the need for integrity and clean antecedents in public service.