Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 981
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can an employer automatically reject a candidate for a job due to past criminal involvement, even if the candidate was later acquitted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a candidate whose police constable position was cancelled because of a previous criminal case. The Court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the matter, emphasizing the need to evaluate the specifics of each case, in light of the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi.
Case Background
The appellant, Vikram Singh, had his candidature for the position of a police constable cancelled by the Commissioner of Police. The cancellation was based on the grounds that Mr. Singh had suppressed information about his involvement in past criminal cases. The appellant had been involved in criminal cases before applying for the constable position, but had been acquitted before the application.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Before Application | Appellant involved in criminal cases. |
| Before Application | Appellant acquitted in criminal cases. |
| Undisclosed Date | Appellant applies for the position of police constable. |
| Undisclosed Date | Candidature of the appellant cancelled by the Commissioner of Police. |
| 15 November 2017 | Supreme Court directs reconsideration of the appellant’s case. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which laid down the principles regarding disclosure of criminal antecedents by job applicants. The relevant points are:
- 38.1: “Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.”
- 38.2: “While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.”
- 38.3: “The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.”
- 38.4: This clause deals with the consequences of suppression or false information about criminal cases where conviction or acquittal has already been recorded. It states that in trivial cases, the employer may ignore the lapse (38.4.1), but in non-trivial cases, the employer may cancel candidature or terminate services (38.4.2). If acquittal has been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or serious offenses, the employer may consider all relevant facts (38.4.3).
- 38.5: “In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.”
- 38.6: “In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.”
- 38.7: “In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.”
- 38.8: “If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.”
- 38.9: “In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.”
- 38.10: “For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.”
- 38.11: “Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that any lapses regarding the disclosure of criminal cases should be condoned, as the incidents occurred before the application, and the appellant had been acquitted before the application. The respondent’s counsel argued that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondent, taking into account all relevant aspects and in light of the Avtar Singh judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the question of whether the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature was justified given the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature was justified given the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. | The Court held that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondent in light of the Avtar Singh judgment. |
Authorities
The primary authority considered by the Court was:
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principles regarding disclosure of criminal antecedents by job applicants.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to direct the respondent to reconsider the appellant’s case in light of the principles laid down in this judgment. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that lapses should be condoned since everything occurred prior to the filing of the application and the appellant had already been acquitted. | The Court did not directly accept or reject this submission but directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in light of the Avtar Singh judgment. |
| Respondent’s submission that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondent, taking into account all relevant aspects and in light of the Avtar Singh judgment. | The Court accepted this submission and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter. |
The Court relied on the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [ (2016) 8 SCC 471 ]* to emphasize that while employers have the right to consider an applicant’s criminal history, they must also take into account the specific circumstances of each case, including whether the applicant was acquitted and the nature of the offense.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach when considering a candidate’s past criminal involvement. The Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the respondent follows the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The Court’s decision was driven by the need for a fair assessment, considering the specific facts of the case, rather than an automatic rejection based on past criminal cases. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant had been acquitted before the application was made.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for fair assessment | 40% |
| Following the guidelines in Avtar Singh v. Union of India | 30% |
| Specific facts of the case | 20% |
| Acquittal of the appellant | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court did not delve into alternative interpretations but focused on the proper application of the guidelines set in Avtar Singh. The decision was reached by emphasizing the need for a case-specific approach rather than a blanket rejection.
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the respondent to reconsider the appellant’s case. The Court stated that the judgment of the High Court shall not stand in the way of the respondent/Commissioner of Police passing orders.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The respondent had not properly considered the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
- The appellant had been acquitted before applying for the position.
- The matter required a case-specific assessment, not an automatic rejection.
“The appellant is permitted to file a detailed representation before the respondent, within a period of one month from today. In the event of filing of such a representation, the respondent will consider the same in the light of the judgment referred to above and pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within a period of four months thereafter.”
“We make it clear that the judgment of the High Court shall not stand in the way of the respondent/Commissioner of Police passing orders, as above.”
“The law on the said issue has been laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case; the decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- Employers must consider the specifics of each case when evaluating a candidate’s criminal history.
- Automatic rejection based solely on past criminal involvement is not permissible.
- The principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India must be followed.
- Acquittal in a criminal case is a significant factor that must be considered.
- Employers must give an opportunity of hearing to the candidate before rejecting the candidature.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondent to:
- Allow the appellant to file a detailed representation within one month.
- Reconsider the matter in light of the Avtar Singh judgment.
- Pass a reasoned order after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing, within four months.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the employer must not reject the candidature of a candidate merely because of past criminal involvement and must consider the specifics of each case, in light of the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and emphasizes the need for a balanced approach when considering a candidate’s past criminal involvement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Singh vs. Commissioner of Police directs the Commissioner of Police to reconsider the appellant’s case, emphasizing the need for a fair and balanced assessment of past criminal involvement in light of the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The Court underscored that automatic rejection based on past criminal cases is not permissible, and that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, especially when an acquittal has been granted.