After 7-Year Wait, Allahabad HC Orders Appointment Of Man As Judge Who Was Denied Job For 'Spying' For Pakistan Despite Acquittal

Petitioner Pradeep Kumar, who had been accused of spying for Pakistan in 2002, was acquitted in a trial in 2014 (the trial started in 2004); however, despite his final selection in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination in 2016, he was denied the appointment letter.

A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh noted that no material exists with the State to conclude that the petitioner may have worked for any foreign intelligence agency and that the acquittal in the trial was honourable.

“What survives with the respondent state authorities is a lingering belief or suspicion that the petitioner had spied for a foreign country. That lingering suspicion has not arisen or survived on any fresh or other cogent material or objective fact, not considered at the criminal trial,” the Court noted.

For the state authorities, who continued to hold on to their suspicion, the court had a stark message: "Neither suspicion, nor simple belief—not founded on objective material, nor whims and fancies—may propel or govern that objective exercise, to be performed by the state respondents."

The Court added that the petitioner was “honourably acquitted” at two criminal trials he faced, and no element of truth was found in the prosecution story in either case, and those orders have attained finality.

The Court also pointed out that the petitioner's acquittal should have effectively erased the stigma, allowing him to move forward with his life and career, free from any unfounded suspicion.

“…the respondents have wrongly continued to entertain a suspicion about the character of the petitioner. They also do not have in their possession any credible or actionable material. Only the fact that the petitioner was charged with a serious offence has prevented the State authorities to act with objectivity. We find no reason exists with the respondents to continue to entertain a belief or suspicion that the petitioner is a person who lacks good moral character to hold judicial office. The unfortunate circumstance of the petitioner having faced two criminal trials, cannot be cited as that reason,” the bench observed as it directed the state government to ensure Character Verification of the petitioner within two weeks and to issue him an appointment by January 15, 2025.

Before the Court, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner faced serious allegations of working as a spy for an enemy nation in 2002 and was apprehended in a joint operation of the Special Task Force (STF) of the State Government and Military Intelligence.

He also contended that though the criminal trials failed, the State Government had enough material to conclude that the petitioner's character could not be certified and, thus, that he was wholly undeserving of the appointment.

At the outset, the Court noted that the state authorities had considered only the material considered at the petitioner's trial to not certify the petitioner's character.

Thus, the Court emphasised that mere repetition of words or reiteration of the suspicion or belief, and/or continued reliance on the self-same material that gave rise to the criminal trial, was irrelevant.

The Court also observed that during the trial, no evidence was presented to prove that the petitioner had acted against the country's interests, been involved in any conspiracy, or committed an offence under Section 124-A of the IPC. Furthermore, he was honourably acquitted in the trial.

Underscoring that the allegation that the petitioner had worked for a foreign intelligence agency was not proven (to any extent), at the criminal trial, the Court strongly remarked that it was impermissible for the State respondents to infer the petitioner's guilt or culpability.

“No material exists with the State respondents to reach a conclusion that the petitioner may have worked for any foreign intelligence agency. The fact that he may have been on the “radar” of the Indian intelligence agencies, itself means nothing. To be suspected of an offence is not an offence or a scar on a citizen's character. Unless objective material was shown to exist with the authorities for that suspicion to continue to exist, no adverse civil consequence may ever arise against a citizen, based on such a lingering suspicion, that too in the face of result of an order of “honourable acquittal” at the criminal trial,” the Court remarked.

Importantly, the Court also added that unless a citizen is reasonably suspected to be involved in an illegal or other activity that may invite adverse civil consequences, the fact that an intelligence agency or police authority may opine -purely subjectively and thus suspect that such a citizen had indulged in any illegal nature of activity or to have performed such act, without any supportive objective material, may remain a wholly inactionable belief, therefore extraneous to the issue of character certification of the concerned citizen.

Furthermore, the Court also observed that the petitioner's unemployed status and search for employment were irrelevant to the case, as it was "absurd" to suspect a person of wrongdoing simply because of their financial status. The Court noted that many people would be unfairly targeted if such circumstances were valid grounds for suspicion.

Additionally, the court also rejected the stance that the petitioner should be judged based on the past actions of his father, who was admittedly dismissed as a judge in 1990 on bribery allegations.

The Court said that a person may not be penalised, and his character may not be judged for the act of another, be it his father or son. The Court also termed it as 'regrettable' that the respondent authorities had also chosen to rely on the allegations of corruption levelled against the father of the petitioner.

“While individuals, who may have levelled the charge against such a person, may continue to harbour a belief or suspicion (to themselves), that that person though “honourably acquitted”, was guilty, yet even they may act on such personal belief only against risk of preventive and other action (against them), by that person. On the other hand, the State and its' institutions, may not continue to entertain such a suspicion or belief any further, as may deprive and deny to the innocent citizen his fundamental right to equality including his right to continuance and progression in life as a citizen, equal in all sense with any other innocent citizens, who may not have been charged with any criminal offence,” the Court further observed.

With this, noting that the respondents have wrongly continued to entertain a suspicion about the character of the petitioner, the Court allowed the plea. It directed that he be issued appointment letter by January 15^th.

The Court clarified that the petitioner may be appointed against existing vacancies, as of date, as even though he was selected against vacancy of 2017, such vacancies survive in the light of the provision of U.P. HJS Rules. Also, the petitioner has no work experience in the HJS cadre for the last seven years.

Appearances

Senior Counsel Ashok Khare, assisted by Advocate Umang Srivastava, appeared for the petitioner; Additional Chief Standing Counsel Kritika Singh appeared for the State-respondents, and Advocate Ashish Mishra appeared for the High Court.