Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J.
Can a past criminal case registered against a person as a juvenile, which resulted in acquittal, be a bar to employment? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a selected candidate was denied a job as a Sub-Inspector due to a past FIR. The Court held that a past juvenile offense, especially one that resulted in acquittal, should not hinder employment opportunities, emphasizing the principle of reintegration of juveniles into society. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, with Justice Vineet Saran authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The respondent, Ramesh Bishnoi, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in response to an advertisement dated 28 March 2015. He successfully cleared the written examination and physical endurance test and was offered appointment on 15 September 2016. During the verification process, he disclosed an FIR (No. 70/2009) registered against him under Sections 354, 447, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He also mentioned that he was acquitted on 24 November 2011, due to a compromise and lack of evidence. Despite this disclosure, the Standing Screening Committee found him unsuitable for appointment, citing the past criminal case. Consequently, his appointment was canceled on 3 June 2017.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 28 March 2015 | Advertisement for Sub-Inspector post in CISF issued. |
| 15 September 2016 | Ramesh Bishnoi offered appointment as Sub-Inspector. |
| 2009 | FIR (No. 70/2009) registered against Ramesh Bishnoi under Sections 354, 447, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). |
| 30 June 2009 | Charges were framed against Ramesh Bishnoi. |
| 24 November 2011 | Ramesh Bishnoi was acquitted due to compromise and lack of evidence. |
| 3 June 2017 | Appointment of Ramesh Bishnoi canceled by National Industrial Security Academy. |
| 6 December 2017 | Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the Writ Petition No.7522 of 2017. |
| 2 January 2018 | Case re-examined by the Standing Screening Committee. |
| 16 January 2018 | Standing Screening Committee rejected Ramesh Bishnoi’s claim again. |
| 8 March 2018 | Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the Writ Petition No.1310 of 2018. |
| 8 May 2018 | Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the Special Appeal Writ No.702 of 2018. |
| 29 November 2019 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent challenged the cancellation of his appointment by filing Writ Petition No. 7522 of 2017 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. A Single Judge allowed the petition on 6 December 2017, directing the authorities to reconsider the case in light of the guidelines issued in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. However, the Standing Screening Committee again rejected the respondent’s claim on 16 January 2018, stating that the acquittal was due to lack of evidence and compromise, and the offense was serious. The respondent then filed another Writ Petition No. 1310 of 2018, which was allowed on 8 March 2018, with directions to activate the appointment. The appellants challenged this order before the Division Bench, which was dismissed on 8 May 2018. The Union of India then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court specifically referred to Section 3(xiv) of the 2015 Act, which states:
“(xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances.”
The Court noted that the thrust of the legislation is to ensure that even if a juvenile is convicted, the record should be obliterated to remove any stigma and facilitate reintegration into society. The Court also considered Sections 354, 447, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under which the FIR was registered against the respondent.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondent’s past involvement in a criminal case, even if he was acquitted, made him unsuitable for the position of Sub-Inspector in CISF. They contended that the nature of the offense was serious and that his acquittal was based on a compromise and lack of evidence, not on his innocence. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that he had disclosed all the facts about the FIR and his subsequent acquittal. He contended that since he was a minor at the time of the alleged offense, the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act should apply, ensuring that his past record should not be held against him.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Past Criminal Case | Nature of offense was serious and acquittal was due to compromise and lack of evidence. | Appellants |
| Past record should not be held against him because he was a minor at the time of the alleged offense and was acquitted. | Respondent | |
| Disclosure of Information | Respondent suppressed material information regarding his criminal past. | Appellants |
| Respondent fairly disclosed all information regarding the charges and acquittal. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the denial of appointment to the respondent on the ground of a past criminal case registered against him as a juvenile, which resulted in acquittal, was justified?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of appointment to the respondent on the ground of a past criminal case registered against him as a juvenile, which resulted in acquittal, was justified? | The Court held that the denial of appointment was not justified. | The Court emphasized the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates that past records of a juvenile should be erased to facilitate reintegration into society. The Court also noted that the respondent had disclosed all information and was acquitted. |
Authorities
The Court relied on the following authorities:
- Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Supreme Court of India. This case provided guidelines on how to deal with past criminal records in employment matters.
- The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
- The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 3(xiv).
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 | Supreme Court of India | The High Court had directed the case to be decided in light of the guidelines issued in this case. |
| The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 | Parliament of India | The Court noted the thrust of this legislation. |
| The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | Parliament of India | The Court relied on Section 3(xiv) of this Act, which provides for the principle of fresh start for juveniles. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The appellants argued that the respondent’s past involvement in a criminal case made him unsuitable for the position. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the respondent was a minor at the time of the offense and was acquitted. The Court emphasized the principle of fresh start for juveniles. |
| The respondent argued that he had disclosed all facts and that the Juvenile Justice Act should apply. | The Court accepted this argument, stating that the respondent had fairly disclosed all information and that the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act should apply. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 | The Court noted that the High Court had correctly considered the guidelines issued in this case. |
| The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 | The Court noted the thrust of this legislation which was to reintegrate the juvenile into society. |
| The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | The Court relied on Section 3(xiv) of this Act, which provides for the principle of fresh start for juveniles. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, which aims to reintegrate juveniles into society without any stigma. The fact that the respondent was a minor at the time of the offense, had disclosed all information, and was acquitted due to lack of evidence and compromise were also significant factors. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s past should not be a bar to his employment, especially when the offense was committed as a juvenile.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Reintegration of Juveniles into Society | 40% |
| Disclosure of Information | 30% |
| Acquittal due to lack of evidence | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Was denial of employment justified due to past juvenile offense?
Fact 1: Respondent was a minor at the time of the offense.
Fact 2: Respondent disclosed the FIR and acquittal.
Law: Juvenile Justice Act mandates erasing past records.
Conclusion: Denial of employment was not justified.
The Court considered the arguments and the facts of the case. It noted that the respondent had disclosed the FIR and his acquittal. The Court emphasized the principle of fresh start for juveniles, as enshrined in Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court stated:
“The thrust of the legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile.”
The Court further added:
“In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509 of IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him.”
The Court concluded that the respondent’s past juvenile offense, which resulted in acquittal, should not be a bar to his employment. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Key Takeaways
- A past criminal case registered against a person as a juvenile, which resulted in acquittal, should not be a bar to employment.
- The principle of “fresh start” under the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that past records of juveniles should be erased to facilitate their reintegration into society.
- Disclosure of past criminal cases, especially those involving juveniles, should be considered with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the respondent shall be entitled to all the benefits of the judgment of the writ court within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a past criminal case registered against a person as a juvenile, which resulted in acquittal, should not be a bar to employment. This judgment reinforces the principle of “fresh start” for juveniles and emphasizes their reintegration into society. This is a reiteration of the principles laid down in the Juvenile Justice Acts and clarifies that even if a juvenile had been convicted, the same should not be held against him for employment purposes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Ramesh Bishnoi reaffirms the importance of the Juvenile Justice Act in ensuring that past juvenile offenses do not hinder future opportunities. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s acquittal and the fact that he was a minor at the time of the offense should not disqualify him from employment. This judgment underscores the principle of rehabilitation and reintegration of juveniles into society.
Category
Parent Category: Juvenile Justice
Child Category: Fresh Start Principle, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: Can a past criminal case as a juvenile affect my chances of getting a job?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, a past criminal case registered against you as a juvenile, especially if you were acquitted, should not be a bar to your employment. The Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes the principle of a “fresh start” for juveniles.
Q: What is the “fresh start” principle?
A: The “fresh start” principle, as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, means that all past records of a child under the juvenile justice system should be erased, except in special circumstances, to ensure that they can reintegrate into society without any stigma.
Q: What if I was convicted as a juvenile?
A: Even if you were convicted as a juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Act aims to ensure that such convictions do not hinder your future opportunities. The focus is on rehabilitation and reintegration, so past convictions should not be held against you for employment purposes.
Q: What should I do if I have a past juvenile record and am applying for a job?
A: It is best to be transparent and disclose the information. This judgment indicates that such past records should not disqualify you, especially if you were acquitted or the matter was resolved. The employer should consider the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Q: What does this judgment mean for employers?
A: This judgment means that employers should not automatically disqualify candidates based on past juvenile records, especially if they were acquitted. Employers should consider the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act and focus on rehabilitation and reintegration when evaluating candidates with such past records.