REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1430 OF 2007
COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SANDEEP KUMAR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 31.07.2006.
The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and
hence we are not repeating the same here, except wherever
necessary.
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’.
:1:
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.
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.
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.
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
:2:
with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his candidature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
:3:
for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief
for his whole life.
The modern approach should be to reform a person
instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
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 found guilty of
contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months
by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning
observed :-
“I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell’s third point.
He says that the sentences were excessive. I do
not think they were excessive, at the time they
were given and in the circumstances then
existing. Here was a deliberate interference with
the course of justice in a case which was no
concern of theirs. It was necessary for the
judge to show – and to show to all students
everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be
tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they
please, for the causes in which they believe.
Let them make their protests as they will. But
they must do it by lawful means and not by
unlawful. If they strike at the course of
justice in this land – and I speak both for
:4:England and Wales – they strike at the roots of
society itself, and they bring down that which
protects them. It is only by the maintenance oflaw and order that they are privileged to be
students and to study and live in peace. So let
them support the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has
been vindicated by the sentences which the judge
passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown
that law and order must be maintained, and will
be maintained. But on this appeal, things are
changed. These students here no longer defy the
law. They have appealed to this court and shown
respect for it. They have already served a week
in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep
them inside it any longer. These young people
are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence,
dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary,
there was much that we should applaud. They wish
to do all they can to preserve the Welsh
language. Well may they be proud of it. It is
the language of the bards – of the poets and the
singers – more melodious by far than our rough
English tongue. On high authority, it should be
equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong
– very wrong – in going to the extreme they did.
But, that having been shown, I think we can, and
should, show mercy on them. We should permit
them to go back to their studies, to their
parents and continue the good course which they
have so wrongly disturbed.”
[ Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B.
114 ]
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as
displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit
indiscretions, which are often condoned.
It is true that in the application form the respondent
did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case
:5:
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
should be taken in the matter.
For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force
and it is dismissed. No costs.
………………….J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
………………….J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2011.
:6: