COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS v. SANDEEP KUMAR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-03-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Commissioner of Police and Others

Respondents

Sandeep Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.S. Doabia
• Rekha Pandey
• Mukesh Verma
• D.S. Mahra

Counsels for Respondents

• Deepak Kumar
• Sudarsh Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns the cancellation of Sandeep Kumar’s candidature for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application form, he answered the critical question about arrest, prosecution, detention, or conviction with a denial. He later disclosed that he and certain family members were involved in a criminal case (FIR 362/ IPC 325/34), which was compromised and in which he was acquitted on 18 January 1998. The recruitment process proceeded, and Kumar qualified in all tests. A show‑cause was issued; on 29 May 2003 his candidature was cancelled for making a wrong statement in the application form. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition; the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that cancellation of his candidature was illegal. The Government's position argued that disclosing the fact of criminal involvement is mandatory and that concealment justifies cancellation to preserve integrity of the recruitment system. The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the Delhi High Court that cancellation was illegal, also engaged in broader reflections on youth, discretion, and reform. It invoked Morris v. Crown Office and literary references to argue that minor indiscretions by the young should be treated with leniency and rehabilitated rather than branded for life. Although the acquittal and compromise are mentioned, the Court noted the possibility that fear of automatic disqualification may have motivated concealment. Ultimately, the Court held that the appeal has no force and dismissed it, with no costs, thereby endorsing the High Court’s view.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 325/34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Youthful indiscretions may be condoned; reform over branding as criminals
Modern approach prioritizes rehabilitation over lifelong criminal labeling

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the respondent concealed involvement in a criminal case in the application form, and even though he was acquitted later, the concealment represented a false statement which merited cancellation of his candidature to preserve the integrity of the recruitment process. They contended that the attestation and disclosure requirements demanded strict compliance, and failure to disclose justified cancellation and removal from eligibility. They also asserted the need to deter similar conduct in the future and to uphold merit-based selection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that while the applicant did not disclose the incident at first, he later disclosed it following the acquittal; given his age at the time (about 20) and the non‑serious nature of the offence relative to heinous crimes, a lenient approach was warranted. They argued for reform rather than lifelong branding, citing youth justice principles. They also pointed to higher court precedents and the principle that rehabilitation should be preferred over punitive lifetime branding in minor indiscretions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Morris v. Crown Office	(1970) 2 Q.B. 114	Positive	Cited to illustrate leniency toward youthful indiscretions and the value of reform over branding as a criminal for life.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 964 A B COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS _v._ SANDEEP KUMAR (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2007) MARCH 17, 2011 [MAR~NDEY **KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]** - _Service law: Appointment Respondent applied for the_ - _post of Head Constable Application form contained a_ C _question if he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under_ - _detention, fined or convicted by court of law for any offence_ - _Respondent answered the question in negative He qualified_ - _in all the tests While filling the attestation form, he disclosed for the first time that he had been involved in a criminal case_ o _with his tenant which later on was compromised and he was_ - _acquitted His candidature was cancelled on the ground that he made a false statement since he was involved in a_ - _criminal case Aggrieved, the respondent filed petition before_ - - _CAT CAT dismissed the petition High Court holding that_ - E _.cancellation of candidature of respondent was illegal_ - - _Justification of Held: Justified Respondent was 20 years_ - _of age when the incident had happen.ed At that age, young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can_ - _often been condoned They are not expected to behave in_ - F _a mature manner_ as _older people The modern approach sl10u/d be to reform a person instead of branding him_ as _a_ - _c1iminal all his life In the application form, the respondent may not have mentioned that he was involved in a criminal_ - _case out_ of _fear of automatic disqualification Even otherwise, it was not such_ a _serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape,_ G _and, therefore, in such matters, a more lenient view should be taken._ _Morris v. Crown Office_ **(1970) 2 Q.B. 114 - referred to.** H 964 COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS _v._ SANDEEP KUMAR 965 ## Case Law Reference: A (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 referred to Para 14 · CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1430 of 2007. · 8 From the Judgment & Order dated 31.7.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12565 of 2004. T.S. Doabia, Rekha Pandey, Mukesh Verma and D.S. Mahra for the Appellants. c Deepak Kumar and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ## ORDER D 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 E 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 F 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 G Service Commission from appearing atits examination/ selection or debarred from any Examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution." Against that column the respondent wrote : 'No'. H 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A 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 B acquitted on 18.01.1998. ## A 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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, H it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled. ## COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS _v._ SANDEEP KUMAR 967 We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the A 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 B 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 C 1[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 for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole D 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 :- E F G "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 H ## 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. - A 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 - B lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at t.he course - - of justice in this land and I speak both for 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 of law and order that they are privileged to - c 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 · - D 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 - E 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 - - - F 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 - G 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] - H ## COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS _v._ SANDEEP KUMAR 969 In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as A 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.. B · 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, c 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. D.G. Appeal dismissed. D