Conviction As Juvenile Does Not Stigmatize Future Employment As Police Constable: Madras High Court

Justice R Subramanian and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup came to the aid of a candidate who had applied for the post of Police Constable. His candidature was rejected when the authorities came to know that he was involved in a criminal offence. Hence, even though he got selected in the written test and the physical test, his name was rejected.

Also Read: Successful Candidate's Juvenile Record Not Ground To Deny Service As Police Constable: Rajasthan High Court

A petition filed by the candidate challenging the decision was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal however, the division bench directed the authorities to appoint the candidate as Grade-II Police Constable and send him for training. Against this decision, the State had filed the review.

Relying on the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules 1955, the State contended that suppression regarding pending criminal case was a disqualification.

The respondent candidate however opposed the review and submitted that he was a minor on the date of the alleged offence. After trial, he was acquitted in the matter and he later moved the court for an honourable acquittal which was also duly granted by the court. He added that an acquittal need not be a ground to reject the candidature of the individual. He also relied on Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 which seeks to remove the stigma associated with children in conflict with law.

The court found force in these arguments. It noted that when a special enactment had sought to remove the stigma, the police should not be acting against the provisions of the Act and claim that the rejection was based on the Service Rules.

When the Special Act prohibits stigma on juveniles in conflict with law, the State shall not act contrary to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 invoking stigma on the very same individual for the criminal case that he faced. This is found unacceptable under the Principle of a Special enactment.

The court added that even if the candidate had been convicted of the offence, the same would not disqualify him for getting employment. The court emphasised that the Service rules will not prevail over the legislative intent of the Juvenile Justice Act.

It said even if there is Conviction, as per Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 it is not necessary that the Petitioner shall disclose the criminal case since there is no stigma as per the Act.

"From the angle of a normal human conduct, when the Juvenile in conflict with law had not been convicted, the individual candidate giving details of the criminal case creates apprehension in his mind that his application will be rejected before the selection procedure begins. Therefore, having been acquitted, his application stating that no criminal case pending on the date, is found to attract the Provision of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015."

Even if there is suppression as stated by the Review Applicant/State, the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules cannot prevail over the Parliamentary intent in enacting the law which is in tune with the object of the International Conference of Juveniles in conflict with law

Thus, the court noted that if the review was to be accepted, the same would amount ignoring the parliamentary intent in enacting a progressive legislation; if the State’s attempt to attach stigma was allowed, the purpose of the Juvenile Justice law would be defeated which the court could not accept. Thus, the court dismissed the review and reiterated the directions to the authorities to appoint the candidate.

Case Title: The Superintendent of Police v. S Rajeshkumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

Click here to read/download the judgment