Police Can't Decide Candidate's Employment Suitability While Verifying Criminal Antecedents: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the police cannot decide whether or not a person is suitable for appointment while issuing a verification report containing criminal antecedents under Section 53 of Kerala Police Act, 2011.2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:“In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a...
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the police cannot decide whether or not a person is suitable for appointment while issuing a verification report containing criminal antecedents under Section 53 of Kerala Police Act, 2011.
2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a police officer, even of the stature of the third respondent [District Police Chief/Verifying Authority], to state whether that person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant. Suitability or otherwise of an applicant to a post, based on the criminal antecedents if any, is the prerogative of the employer. It must always be open to the employer to decide whether the existence of any criminal case would render an applicant unsuitable or not. In other words, the suitability of an applicant to a post cannot be decided by the police.”
The Court was considering a writ petition challenging a verification report issued by the District Police Chief/Verifying Authority that certified that the petitioner was not suitable for employment. He was employed at HLL Life Card Ltd. and after the issuance of the verification report, the employer initiated proceedings to terminate his employment.
According to the petitioner, he met with a motor accident while riding a motorcycle and the rider of the vehicle with which he collided died. A crime was registered subsequent to the accident with offences under Sections 281 [Rash driving or riding on a public way], 125(a) and 125(b) [Act endangering life or personal safety of others] of Bharthiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.
The investigation in the case has been completed and a final report has also been filed. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal also.
The petitioner submitted the details of the afore criminal case to the verifying authority as directed by his employer. Thereafter, the impugned verification report certifying him to be non-suitable for employment was issued. Aggrieved, he came before the High Court.
The Court examined Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, dealing with verification of antecedents of service providers. As per this provision, the Government may direct service providers to obtain a police verification certificate in respect of themselves or their employers before they start providing any service to the public.
The Court also took note of the fact that in the form in which the verification report was issued, column No. 6 is a question “Whether suitable for appointment or not”. Considering these two, the Court opined:
“As the subtitle to section 53 of the Act stipulates, the report to be issued by the Police under the said provision is a report on the antecedents. The Legislature has not contemplated the issuance of a report on the suitability of a person for a particular employment…when an input is called for from the police by an employer regarding the character and antecedents of a person sought to be appointed or already appointed, the police officer is not expected to express any opinion about the suitability of that person. The tabular column No.6, in the Form for issuing the verification report is legally unsustainable. In fact, the Government would do well, by deleting column No.6 in the format for issuing the verification report.”
It was further opined that the report was issued without application of mind since in the column whether any criminal case is pending, the verifying authority had marked 'No' while also containing a reference to the afore crime.
“It fails all comprehension even, as to how an applicant will become unsuitable for a post due to a motor vehicle accident, unless of course, the employment in question, relates to driving of vehicles,” the Court added.
Thus, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the observation in column no. 6 regarding non-suitability of petitioner, finding the same to be without authority, arbitrary and perverse. It also clarified that the said observation cannot be used against him.
Case No: W.P.(C) No.17992 of 2026
Case Title: Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Counsel for the petitioner: Souradh C. Valson, Jacob Chacko
Counsel for the respondents: Rajeev Jyothish George – Government Pleader