Youth & Rural Setting Not Grounds To Condone Criminal Conduct : Supreme Court In Police Constable Selection Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Delhi High Court judgment which had directed the Delhi Police to consider certain candidates for police constable selection despite their criminal cases.A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat took a critical view of the High Court's approach in adopting a light approach towards the criminal behaviour of the candidates on the basis of their young age and rural setting."The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided", the judgment authored by Justice Bhat stated."Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour", the judgment added.The Court stressed that since the selection was to police force which is tasked with maintaining law and order and to tackle lawlessness, there should be maximum scrutiny by the selection authorities to inspire public confidence. The bench observed that Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post and that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service.The selection authority had declined appointment of some candidates on the ground that they faced criminal proceedings and in most of them, even charges were framed after which the cases against them ended in a compromise. They approached Central Administrative Tribunal challenging these orders rejecting their candidature. CAT allowed their applications and these orders were assailed before the High Court by the Police Department. While dismissing the writ petitions, the High Court took note of youth and age of the candidates and observed that their misdemeanour should not be taken seriouslyDisagreeing with the High Court's approahc, the Supreme Court observed that the autonomy or choice of the public employer has to be given due weight as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides. It said:26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment.29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.The court also considered the issue whether in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an applicant/candidate arrayed as accused of various offences is a decisive factor for consideration of his or her suitability. The bench, in this regard, noted the observations made in Avtar Singh v. UOI."Several judgments in the past had appeared to draw a distinction between "clean" acquittal of accused individuals on the one hand and those acquitted or exonerated on account of benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates were charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes were examined", the Court observed.Case: Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar Citation: LL 2021 SC 402Coram: Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Youth & Rural Setting Not Grounds To Condone Criminal Conduct : Supreme Court In Police Constable Selection Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post.

Tags