Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of District Judge Candidate Due to Pending Criminal Case: Anil Bhardwaj vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: October 13, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 781

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a candidate who has been selected for the post of District Judge be denied appointment because of a pending criminal case, even if they are later acquitted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, examining the balance between a candidate’s right to employment and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial service. This case revolves around a candidate whose appointment was cancelled due to a pending criminal case, despite being on the select list and later being acquitted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2017, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh advertised for the recruitment of District Judges (Entry Level). Anil Bhardwaj, the appellant, applied and was successful in the main examination, subsequently being placed on the provisional select list. He was informed of his selection in April 2018 and asked to undergo medical tests. However, in July 2018, the Law and Legislative Department of Madhya Pradesh raised concerns about a pending criminal case against him (FIR No. 852/2014 under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), which was filed by his wife. Consequently, in September 2018, his name was removed from the select list, and he was declared ineligible for the post.

Bhardwaj initially challenged this decision in the High Court, but later withdrew the petition to file a fresh one after he was acquitted of the charges in September 2019. The fresh writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Anil Bhardwaj, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the order dated 14.09.2018 and the Gazette notification dated 21.09.2018, which declared him ineligible for the post of District Judge. After obtaining information through the Right to Information Act, he learned that the Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee had deemed him unsuitable on 18.07.2018 due to the pending criminal case against him. Subsequently, Bhardwaj was acquitted of the charges on 18.09.2019. He then withdrew his initial writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh one, incorporating the acquittal order and other subsequent events. The fresh writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 06.01.2020, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The recruitment to the Judicial Service in Madhya Pradesh is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994. The Supreme Court of India, in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and others, 2008(17) SCC 703, directed all states to fill vacancies in subordinate courts within a specified time schedule. The selection process for District Judges is to be completed by all High Courts as per this schedule. The court noted that mere inclusion in a select list does not grant an indefeasible right to appointment, and employers can refuse appointment on valid grounds.

The relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cited in the case are:

• Section 498A: *“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.”*
• Section 406: *“Punishment for criminal breach of trust.”*
• Section 34: *“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.”*

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, Anil Bhardwaj, disclosed the lodging of FIR No. 852/2014 under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in his online application form.
• Having disclosed the FIR, he did not conceal any fact from the High Court and was entitled to be appointed, having been selected on merit.
• The subsequent acquittal on 18.09.2019 should have led to a reconsideration of his case for appointment.
• The cancellation of his candidature solely due to the pendency of a criminal case was not justified.
• He should not be deprived of employment after being acquitted.
• There was no other material to suggest that his conduct was not up to the mark.
• The High Court should have referred the matter back to the Higher Judicial Service and Examination-cum-Selection Committee for reconsideration.
• He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and others (C.A.No.10571 of 2018) where a judicial officer was directed to be given appointment after acquittal.
• The decision to declare him unsuitable was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for character verification dated 05.06.2003. Paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines states that on acquittal on merit, the candidate would be eligible for government service.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The High Court’s decision to disqualify the appellant was based on the fact that a criminal case under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was pending against him at the time of selection.
• The inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment.
• The employer has the right to refuse appointment to a candidate on valid grounds.
• Persons in the Judicial Service are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.
• The pendency of the criminal case was a valid reason for the Committee to declare the appellant unsuitable.
• The subsequent acquittal of the appellant does not automatically entitle him to appointment, as the acquittal occurred after the selection process was completed.
• The decision of the Screening Committee should be final unless it is shown to be mala fide.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in that it relied on the subsequent acquittal and the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to claim eligibility, while also citing a similar case where the Supreme Court had directed appointment after acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the resolution dated 18.07.2018, which declared the appellant unsuitable for appointment, suffered from any error that required judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the appellant’s case was required to be reconsidered in view of his subsequent acquittal on 18.09.2019.
3. Whether the decision to declare the appellant unsuitable on the ground of pendency of a criminal case was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for character verification dated 05.06.2003.

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

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and high standards of the judicial service. The court emphasized that persons occupying judicial positions must have an impeccable character and conduct. The pendency of a criminal case, especially one involving allegations of cruelty and breach of trust, raised significant concerns about the suitability of the candidate for such a position. The court also highlighted that the employer has the right to refuse appointment to a candidate on valid grounds, and the mere inclusion in a select list does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment. The subsequent acquittal, while significant, did not automatically erase the concerns raised by the pendency of the criminal case at the time of selection. The court also noted that the guidelines relied upon by the appellant were not applicable in this case, as the acquittal occurred after the selection process.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the pendency of a criminal case against the appellant at the time of selection was a valid ground for disqualification. The court also rejected the argument that the subsequent acquittal should lead to automatic reconsideration, as the acquittal occurred after the selection process. The court also rejected the argument that the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for character verification dated 05.06.2003 were breached, as the guidelines were applicable at the time of character verification, when the appellant had not yet been acquitted.

The court’s decision was that the High Court did not err in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The court held that the decision of the Committee to declare the appellant unsuitable was valid, and the subsequent acquittal did not automatically entitle him to appointment.

The court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The pendency of a criminal case against the appellant at the time of selection raised concerns about his suitability for the judicial service.
• The employer has the right to refuse appointment to a candidate on valid grounds.
• The mere inclusion in a select list does not grant an indefeasible right to appointment.
• The subsequent acquittal did not automatically erase the concerns raised by the pendency of the criminal case at the time of selection.
• The guidelines relied upon by the appellant were not applicable in this case.

The following direct quotes from the judgment support the court’s reasoning:

• “The persons who occupy Judicial Service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.”
• “The mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate. The employer has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground.”
• “The aforesaid contemplation relates to at the time of character verification. Thus, at the time of character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on merits by the Court, the candidate shall be treated to be eligible for Government Service.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of legal precedents and the application of those precedents to the specific facts of the case. The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial service and the employer’s right to refuse appointment on valid grounds.

The decision has potential implications for future cases involving the appointment of candidates to judicial service or other positions requiring high standards of integrity. It clarifies that the pendency of a criminal case at the time of selection can be a valid ground for disqualification, even if the candidate is subsequently acquitted. It also highlights the importance of character verification and the employer’s right to make decisions based on the information available at the time of selection.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirmed existing principles regarding the importance of integrity in public service and the employer’s right to refuse appointment on valid grounds.

Key Takeaways

• A pending criminal case at the time of selection can be a valid ground for disqualification from judicial service.
• Inclusion in a select list does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment.
• Employers have the right to refuse appointment on valid grounds.
• Subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment if the acquittal occurs after the selection process.
• The integrity of the judicial service is of paramount importance.

This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity in public service, particularly in the judicial service. It also highlights the need for candidates to be transparent about any criminal history and for employers to conduct thorough character verification. The decision may lead to more stringent scrutiny of candidates with pending criminal cases and may make it more difficult for such candidates to secure public employment.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this case, except to dismiss the appeal. However, the court observed that the stigma, if any, of the criminal case lodged against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is washed out due to his acquittal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the pendency of a criminal case against a candidate at the time of selection for judicial service is a valid ground for disqualification, and a subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle the candidate to appointment if the acquittal occurs after the selection process. This judgment reaffirms the existing position of law regarding the importance of integrity in public service and the employer’s right to refuse appointment on valid grounds. The Supreme Court did not change any previous positions of law but rather applied existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to disqualify Anil Bhardwaj from appointment as a District Judge. The court emphasized that the pendency of a criminal case at the time of selection is a valid ground for disqualification, and a subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle the candidate to appointment if the acquittal occurs after the selection process. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity in the judicial service.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Judicial Appointments
• Criminal Antecedents
• Character Verification
• Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994
• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can a candidate be denied a government job if they have a pending criminal case?
A: Yes, a pending criminal case can be a valid reason to deny a government job, especially in positions requiring high integrity such as judicial service.

Q: Does an acquittal in a criminal case guarantee a government job?
A: No, an acquittal does not automatically guarantee a government job. The employer can still consider the circumstances of the case and the candidate’s overall suitability.

Q: What happens if a candidate is acquitted after the selection process?
A: If a candidate is acquitted after the selection process, it does not automatically entitle them to appointment. The employer is not obligated to reconsider their case.

Q: Is it necessary to disclose past criminal cases in job applications?
A: Yes, it is essential to disclose any past criminal cases in job applications. Failure to do so can lead to disqualification, even if the candidate is later acquitted.

Q: What is the importance of character verification in government jobs?
A: Character verification is crucial to ensure that candidates have the necessary integrity and suitability for public service. It helps maintain the high standards expected in government positions.