Legal provisions involved: Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354D of the IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Facts
The respondent was selected for the post of Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari in Uttar Pradesh. While filling the attestation and verification forms, he stated that no criminal cases were pending against him. However, two criminal cases were actually pending at that time. This came to light during police verification. Later, the respondent voluntarily disclosed the cases through an affidavit and was eventually acquitted. His appointment was cancelled, but the High Court set aside the cancellation, calling the non-disclosure trivial.
Key legal provisions
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354D of the IPC
Issues raised
Whether hiding information about pending criminal cases can be excused if the candidate later discloses it or is acquitted?
Arguments of the case
The State argued that the respondent knowingly gave false information and breached the trust required for public service. The respondent argued that the offences were minor and that he later disclosed the cases on his own.
Judgement
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal. It held that full and honest disclosure is mandatory in government jobs. Deliberately hiding facts cannot be justified later, even if the candidate is acquitted. Sympathy cannot override the law.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
