Back
2011 (2) Supreme 446
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Commr. of Police and Ors — Appellants
versus
Sandeep Kumar — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 1430 of 2007
Decided on : 17-3-2011
Facts of the Case :
Candidature of respondent for post of Head Constable (Ministerial) was cancelled for concealing the fact of his involvement in a criminal case and for making a wrong statement in his application form. Respondent filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed. Writ Petition thereagainst was Allowed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. Approach of Courts should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view ought to have been taken in the matter. Appeal was dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes a lenient, reformative approach toward youth and condoning minor indiscretions rather than branding the individual as a criminal for life (!) (!) . - It holds that concealment of a past criminal involvement, especially when the offense is not serious (e.g., not murder, dacoity, or rape), may warrant a more lenient view and should be considered in context rather than automatic disqualification (!) (!) . - The Court set aside cancellation of candidature in the cited Delhi High Court matter, endorsing reform over lifelong branding for a young applicant (!) (!) . - The decision discusses the balance between truthful disclosure in application forms and the potential negative impact of penalizing youthful indiscretions, highlighting the need for proportionality and consideration of age at the time of the incident (!) (!) . - The judgment references comparative principles and examples (Les Misérables analogy, Welsh students) to illustrate mercy and reform in youth cases (!) (!) - (!) . - The respondent had concealed involvement in a criminal case (Sections 325/34 IPC) but later disclosed it; the court treated this in light of age and nature of offense, suggesting non-seriousness may justify leniency (!) (!) (!) - (!) .
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 31.07.2006.
3. The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here, except wherever necessary.
4. The respondent herein-Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application form it was printed :
“12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from any Examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution.”
Against that column the respondent wrote: ‘No’.
5. It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the respondent because he and some of his family members were involved in a criminal case being FIR 362 under Section 325/34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on 18.01.1998 and the respondent and his family members were acquitted on 18.01.1998.
6. In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filing up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case.
7. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted.
8. On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form. The respondent submitted his reply on 17.08.2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his candidature.
9. The respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled.
11. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter.
12. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
13. In this connection, we may refer to the character ‘Jean Valjean’ in Victor Hugo’s novel ‘Les Miserables’, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life.
14. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
15. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book ‘Due Process of Law’. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were foun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
