Supreme Court Upholds Police Decision on Criminal Background: Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (28 February 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023
Citation: Not Available in Source
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a person with a criminal history, even if acquitted, be deemed unsuitable for a job in the police force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining whether an acquittal in a criminal case automatically qualifies an individual for police service. This judgment delves into the nuances of “honorable acquittal” and its implications for employment in disciplined forces. The bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

In 2008-2009, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (the petitioner) participated in a selection process for the position of constable 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 basic recruit training course (BRTC). However, a routine background check revealed that a criminal case was registered against him in 2007 at Police Station Kralgund, under Section 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 6 of the Forest Act. This case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. The police department initiated an inquiry, alleging that Malla had concealed his criminal involvement and provided a false address during verification. Consequently, his appointment 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, which was set aside on May 18, 2016, after he was acquitted in the criminal case on April 26, 2011. The High Court directed the police to reconsider his case in light of a communication dated February 27, 2012, concerning similarly situated individuals. However, on July 31, 2017, the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, again found him unsuitable for the constable position due to his criminal background. This led Malla to file another writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Bench of the High Court on May 14, 2018, citing the decision in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Another*. The Single Bench held that the decision of the Director General of Police, the highest functionary in the hierarchy of police department, to consider the suitability of the appellant for induction into police force, could not be called into question. An appeal filed by Malla was dismissed by the Division Bench on August 9, 2019.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the Forest Act, specifically:
✓ Section 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC): This section deals with the offense of theft.
✓ Section 6 of the Forest Act: This section pertains to offenses related to forest laws.
The court also discusses the concept of “honorable acquittal,” noting that this term is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code but has been developed through judicial pronouncements. The court also notes that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. The acquittal has to be honorable.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that his acquittal in the criminal case should be considered an “honorable acquittal” since the prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer and prove the charges against him.
• The petitioner contended that the basis for considering him to have a criminal background no longer existed after his acquittal by the competent criminal court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Director General of Police, as the highest authority in the police department, had the right to determine the suitability of candidates for the police force.
• The respondents relied on the fact that the petitioner had a criminal background and had concealed this information during the recruitment process.
• The respondents argued that the acquittal was not an “honorable acquittal” as it was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the case rather than the petitioner’s innocence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, could be compelled to reinstate the petitioner after his acquittal in a criminal case, given the petitioner’s criminal background and the fact that the Director General of Police, 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal principles:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Another* to reiterate that an acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of candidates for a post.
• The Court referred to Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh* to explain the concept of “honorable acquittal,” emphasizing that it requires a complete exoneration of the accused, not just a benefit of doubt.
• The Court cited Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal* and R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and Another* to support the view that a mere acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement; the acquittal must be “honorable.”
• The Court used Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others* to highlight that an employer can still consider an employee’s antecedents even if a criminal case has concluded.
• The Court referred to Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram* to define “honorable acquittal” as one where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges.
• The Court cited State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan* to emphasize that a candidate for the police service must have impeccable character and integrity.
• The Court relied on Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab* to explain that the doctrine of equality does not envisage negative equality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of integrity and high standards of conduct in the police force. The court noted that the petitioner’s acquittal was not “honorable” as it was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the charges, rather than a finding of innocence. The Court also highlighted that the police force is a disciplined force and must maintain public trust. Therefore, individuals with criminal backgrounds, even if acquitted, may not be suitable for employment in the police force. The Court also noted that the Director General of Police, being the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, is the best judge to consider the suitability of the petitioner for induction into the police force. The court also considered the fact that the petitioner had concealed his criminal background during the recruitment process.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the police force requires individuals of impeccable character and integrity. The court also considered that the petitioner had concealed his criminal background during the recruitment process. The court ultimately decided that the Director General of Police was justified in not reinstating the petitioner.

The court’s decision is based on the principle that a mere acquittal does not automatically qualify an individual for a job in the police force. The acquittal has to be “honorable”, meaning that the accused is completely exonerated of all charges. In this case, the petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove the charges, not because he was found to be innocent.

“The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by expressions “honourable acquittal”.”

“It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still, it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically guarantee employment, especially in disciplined forces like the police.
• The concept of “honorable acquittal” is crucial; it requires a complete exoneration of the accused, not just a benefit of doubt.
• Police departments have the right to consider a candidate’s criminal history, even after an acquittal, when assessing suitability for employment.
• The decision of the Director General of Police or a similar authority in the police hierarchy is given significant weight in determining suitability for police service.
• Concealing criminal history during the recruitment process can be a valid ground for denying employment.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis 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 employment in the police force. The acquittal has to be honorable, meaning that the person has been completely exonerated of all charges. The court reiterated the principle that the police force requires individuals of impeccable character and integrity. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the police department has the right to consider a candidate’s criminal history, even after an acquittal, when assessing suitability for employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the decision of the High Court. The Court emphasized that the police force requires individuals of the highest integrity and that an acquittal based on a benefit of doubt does not automatically qualify a person for police service. The judgment reinforces the authority of police departments to make final decisions regarding the suitability of candidates, especially when criminal backgrounds are involved.