Supreme Court Upholds Police Decision on Criminal Antecedents in Recruitment: Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 179

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a person with a past criminal case, even if acquitted, be deemed unsuitable for a job in the police force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning a constable appointment in Jammu and Kashmir. The court examined whether an acquittal in a criminal case automatically qualifies a candidate for police service, especially when the acquittal was not “honorable.” This judgment clarifies the standards for police recruitment, emphasizing the importance of integrity and public trust. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

In 2008-2009, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla successfully participated in the selection process for a constable position in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police. He received an appointment letter on August 20, 2009, and was subsequently sent to the Police Training School, Manigam, for a nine-month training course. However, during a routine background check, it was discovered that Malla was involved in a criminal case registered in 2007 under Section 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 6 of the Forest Act at Police Station, Kralgund. This case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara.

The police investigation revealed that Malla was arrested and released on bail after four days. The police alleged that Malla was aware of his involvement in the criminal case but concealed this information. It was also found that Malla had provided a false address during the police verification process. Consequently, his appointment order was canceled on March 1, 2010.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Malla initially challenged the cancellation of his appointment in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, filing SWP No. 2616 of 2011. While this petition was pending, he was acquitted in the criminal case on April 26, 2011. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order on May 18, 2016, directing the authorities to reconsider his case, taking into account similar cases. However, upon reconsideration, the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, issued an order on July 31, 2017, stating that Malla was unsuitable for the constable post due to his criminal background.

Malla then filed another writ petition (SWP No. 1766 of 2017) seeking reinstatement. The Single Bench of the High Court dismissed this petition on May 14, 2018, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Another, which held that the decision of the Director General of Police regarding the suitability of a candidate could not be questioned. Malla’s subsequent appeal (LPASW No. 71 of 2018) was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on August 9, 2019.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of service law concerning police recruitment and the implications of criminal acquittals. The court refers to various precedents to define the term “honorable acquittal” and its relevance in determining a candidate’s suitability for police service. The court also considered the importance of maintaining the integrity of the police force and the standards of conduct expected from its members.

The Supreme Court also considered the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, which specifies that even if an employee has truthfully declared a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that his acquittal in the criminal case should be considered an honorable acquittal because the prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer and could not prove the charges against him.
• The petitioner contended that the basis for assuming his criminal background no longer existed due to his acquittal by the competent court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents maintained that the Director General of Police, as the highest authority in the police department, had the discretion to determine the suitability of a candidate.
• The respondents argued that the acquittal was not “honorable” as it was based on the benefit of doubt due to contradictory evidence and the non-examination of the investigating officer, not on a finding of innocence.
• The respondents contended that the police force requires individuals of utmost integrity and that a person with a criminal background, even if acquitted, may not be suitable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, who after examining the record of the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the post into the police force in view of his criminal background, could be compelled to reinstate the petitioner on his acquittal in the criminal case.

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

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Director General of Police was justified in denying Malla’s reinstatement. The court emphasized that the police force requires individuals of impeccable character and integrity. The court also clarified that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt or technicalities does not automatically qualify as an “honorable acquittal.”

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Another [ (2018) 1 SCC 797]* to reiterate that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to a job, especially in a disciplined force like the police.
• The Court used Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685]* to define the concept of “honorable acquittal” and to emphasize that stricter norms should be applied while appointing persons in a disciplinary force.
• The Court referred to Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598]* to explain that an “honorable acquittal” occurs when the prosecution fails to prove the charges.
• The Court cited Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541]* and R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and Another [AIR 1964 SC 787]* to support the view that a mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement; the acquittal must be honorable.
• The Court applied Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others [(2016) 8 SCC 471]* to underscore that even if an employee truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and discipline of the police force. The court emphasized that public trust in the police is paramount, and therefore, the recruitment process must be stringent. The court was concerned that allowing individuals with criminal backgrounds, even if acquitted on technical grounds, could undermine the public’s faith in the police. The court also highlighted the importance of the employer’s discretion to assess the suitability of a candidate, especially in a disciplined force. The court also took into consideration that the petitioner had concealed information about his criminal case and had given false information about his address during the police verification process.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that the petitioner’s acquittal should be seen as honorable, but rejected it because the acquittal was not based on a finding of innocence, but on the prosecution’s failure to prove the charges. The court also considered the argument that the Director General of Police should be compelled to reinstate the petitioner, but rejected it because of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the police force. The court concluded that the Director General of Police was justified in denying the petitioner’s reinstatement.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and reasoning. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.

The court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the law and a strong emphasis on the importance of maintaining the integrity of the police force. The court’s decision could have implications for other cases involving police recruitment and criminal antecedents.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “That the I.O. has not been produced and examined which is legal infirmity in the prosecution case as material contradictions have not been answered nor the site plan has been proved.”
• “When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.”
• “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.”

Key Takeaways

✓ An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically qualify a candidate for a job in the police force.

✓ The term “honorable acquittal” has a specific meaning in this context, and an acquittal based on benefit of doubt or technicalities does not qualify.

✓ The police department has the right to consider a candidate’s criminal antecedents, even after an acquittal, to ensure the integrity of the force.

✓ The decision of the Director General of Police regarding a candidate’s suitability is generally final unless it is shown to be mala fide.

✓ Candidates for police service must have impeccable character and integrity.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to a job in the police force, especially if the acquittal is not “honorable.” This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that police recruitment requires stringent standards of integrity and that the employer has the discretion to assess a candidate’s suitability, even after an acquittal. The case clarifies that the term “honorable acquittal” is not merely an acquittal but one where the prosecution has failed to prove the charges, indicating the innocence of the accused. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir underscores the importance of integrity and public trust in the police force. The court upheld the decision of the police department to deny employment to a candidate with a criminal background, even after his acquittal, because the acquittal was not deemed “honorable.” This judgment serves as a reminder that police recruitment requires stringent standards and that an acquittal on technical grounds does not automatically qualify a candidate for police service.