Past Character Not Decisive For Public Employment: Kerala HC Urges State To Foster Development Of Less Fortunate Individuals By Not Condemning Them For Past Crimes

The petitioner, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community from the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category was denied advice to public service due to his involvement in nine criminal cases in the past. 

Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen set aside the government order cancelling his advice to the post of Police Constable (Kerala Armed Police Battalion) and held thus: 

“The State must raise its role as a responsible welfare State to secure social citizenship, instead of acting solely as an authority wielding power to enforce its will. If this tiny man is lost, a generation is lost. Our power corridors are built in a negative frame to find fault with a person rather than to soothe fears or instill a sense of responsibility to transform him into a responsible citizen. We all need to be reminded that every individual's struggle is against their past, and those who realize their past mistakes and are prepared to move towards the future are the ones who truly enhance the beauty of the world. Past achievements not necessarily determine one's future as bright. One who learns from his past and fears distrust of everyone in the future is truly valuable. In the realm of public employment, the past is relevant but not decisive. If sinners are not allowed to reform, we all will become sinners.”

The Court noted that the petitioner was acquitted in all cases registered against him under the IPC. It found that in some cases, the petitioner pleaded guilty and paid a fine under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002 and in other crimes he was acquitted.

The Court stated that the government order issued against the petitioner would reveal that involvement in criminal cases would debar a candidate from seeking public employment. It clarified that the character of a person was crucial for determining his suitability for public employment but antecedents or his involvement in criminal cases do not mean that his suitability has to be curtailed indefinitely.

It said, “The necessary traits required include personal integrity, adherence to the law, and competence in enforcing rules or laws. There must be a proximity of the history and considerations for keeping an individual in public service. The antecedents, as mentioned in the rule above, should be of a nature that gives room for the opinion that the individual's character has not improved or reformed while being considered for appointment in public service. The past shall hold him but shall not withhold his aspirations for improvement and progress. Society or the State should not harbor contempt for such a person solely because he was involved in any criminal case. “

Considering the crimes registered against the petitioner, the Court stated that there were no overt acts proved against him for any offences under the IPC. It stated that the petitioner had paid the fine amount twice but that by itself should not stigmatize him forever in a country where litigants find it easier to pay the fine than to face the ordeals of a trial. It thus held that the petitioner should not be condemned indefinitely for paying a fine amount twice.

The Court then went on to explain that the petitioner belonged to the SC community and was from a BPL family. It found that all cases registered against him were from five years ago and were only incidents from his past. It stated that there was no live link of his character to his antecedents in the past and that he should not be condemned indefinitely by denying his opportunity to public service.

It added, “The system should not foster dismay and condemnation towards him indefinitely. Let us all be beacons of hope, despite his condemnation, poverty, and marginalization by societal structures.”

The Court also denied allegations that the petitioner suppressed information regarding his involvement in criminal cases. It said that mere non-disclosure of case numbers would not amount to suppression of information.

The Court stated that the State must act with fairness and genuine concern for its citizens to achieve the status of a true welfare state by addressing social disparities and acknowledging that not everyone do not have the same access to resources and opportunities. It stated that diverse background or unequal circumstances shape the character of a person and the state should strive to foster their development and not alienate or marginalize such persons.

It said, “Attempting to apply identical measures (in a matter like this relating to character) to all individuals can be counterproductive to the State's larger objectives. Instead, the State should focus on evolving character, by fostering a sense of belonging within the desired societal framework. Condemnation alienates and deepens social division resulting in further marginalizing those who have already been marginalized.”

The Court thus disposed of the petition and cancelled the government order, setting aside his advice, and held that this case should act as a reminder to less fortunate individuals who have faced many obstacles in their lives due to the state's overwhelming power.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates R.Reji Kumar, P.R.Jayakrishnan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 237

Case title: Binnesh Babu@ Bineesh Babu v State of Kerala

Case number: OP(KAT) NO. 315 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment