Ashima Mishra
Human Resource Executive, Legal WIND
Date of Judgement: 30 April 2021
Bench: Single judge bench led by Justice Ajay Bhanot
Court: Allahabad High Court
Citation:[(2020) Allahabad HC 9594]
INTRODUCTION:
Law has been a savior, and a punishment given for an individual according to their deeds during their lifetime. Whether it is Indian law or International law, it has treated every individual equally. When the constitution was being drafted during the pre-independent era, many provisions were not inserted as there was no requirement during that time, but with due course of time, when society developed, things started changing according to the need to time, needs of the people increased, the crime rate rose to next level. As, a result of which many provisions were inserted, and along with it many legislations came into force.
The same goes for children who are also referred to as juveniles.[1] They have been given a separate class under the Constitution of India by keeping in view their needs. The fundamental rights provided under the constitution of India are not only restricted to adults, but it is equally applicable to children. Indian laws have given birth to the legal provision especially for the children for four times followed by an ample amount of amendments in the years 1986[2], 2000[3], 2015,[4] and 2021[5].
The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 has a provision which states that if a person is forced to reveal the details of his criminal prosecution as a juvenile then it would lead to violation of the right to privacy as well as it would conflict with the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also goes against the provisions mentioned under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 which speaks about the protection of a child. The interviewing authority cannot compel or ask any candidate to reveal the details of any criminal prosecution faced by him as a juvenile.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
In the following case, the Petitioner named Anuj Kumar filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad as he was removed from the appointment of the post of constable in the PAC, Etah despite qualifying all the examinations. On 14 January 2018, the petitioner found out about the advertisement given by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment & Promotion Board applied for the position of constable in Civil Police & Provincial Armed Constabulary.
The Petitioner qualified for both the written test as well as the physical standard exam and got selected at the serial no. 1350 as per the list released by the concerned authority. Later the Petitioner was restraint from the appointment as it was found that as a result of an inquiry made by the Senior Superintendent of Police of Etah that the former has a criminal record in the past and the charges were registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998.
This led to the aggrieved person to file a writ petition against the authority because of the unfair denial of appointment for the post of constable in PAC, Etah.
ISSUES:
1.Whether the petitioner can be restraint from the appointment for the post of constable because of his previous criminal prosecution while he was a juvenile?
2. Whether the interviewing authority misinterpreted the law by compelling the Petitioner to disclose the details of his previous criminal antecedents?
ARGUMENTS:
The following arguments made by both sides are as follows: -
The contention by the Petitioner-
● The learned counsel of the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh submitted that the law was wrongly directed by the Respondent.
● The Respondent has removed the petitioner just because of the offense committed by the latter when he was a juvenile.
●The learned counsel has argued that the order of removal based on criminal antecedents during the juvenile period is purely arbitrary, illegal, and violates Article 21[6] of the Constitution of India.
Contentions by the Respondent-
● The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that the pendency of the criminal case, as well as the suppression of the same in the attestation form by the Petitioner, has been admitted.
●He further submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are not petty in nature.
●The removal of the Petitioner has been lawfully done as he is not eligible for the appointment of such a disciplined job which plays a major role in serving society.
EXPLANATION:
This case has been in conflict with the existing laws of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. Section 24 of the said act states that if a child has faced any criminal prosecution shall not suffer from any disqualification and the child who has completed the age of sixteen, then the clause (i) of sub-section 1 under section 24 shall not apply to him. In this case, the petitioner was fifteen years eight months, and twelve days old when he faced such criminal prosecution, so this law can be applicable to him. Sub-section 2 of this provision also provided that the police or the children’s court shall be asked by the board to destroy the relevant record after the expiry of the period of appeal but in the heinous cases, such record shall be retained by the court.
Similarly, section 74 and 99 of the said Act deals with protecting the child’s identity and to keep the record of the child confidential who have faced such criminal prosecution. Thus, all these sections have been in conflict as the respondent has misdirected by removing the petitioner from a reputed job on the basis of previous convictions as a child along with compelling him to reveal his identity which is an offense under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court also referred to the case of K.S. Puttuswamy Vs. Union of India[7] where the court held that the right to privacy is also a child’s fundamental right. And Right to privacy also includes the right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for a heinous offense.
In this case, many surveys were made based on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 where it was found that the petitioner was a child in conflict with the law during the commission of the offense. Here the child in conflict with the law means a child who is yet to complete eighteen years of age. It was also found that there is a right of an employer to find about his employee’s criminal records before appointing him but the legal regimes of child rights also circumscribed it.
The interviewing authority has functioned contrary to sections 24, 74, and 99 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 which is clearly violating Articles 15 (2) and 21 of the constitution of India.
VERDICT:
In this case, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that mere prosecution and imposition of a penalty for an offense cannot be a ground for restraining a person from appointment. The court issued the writ of mandamus and along with that implement certain orders. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court directed for the re-appointment of the petitioner as he was removed despite posing all the required qualifications and caliber for the constable post. Further, the court also directed the concerned authority to issue an appointment letter along with providing a post as per his seniority which he would have received if his candidature was not canceled. Hence the court allowed the petition. The Court also held that if a candidate is juvenile and he faces any criminal charges that it will be unfair to judge his suitability based on that prosecution and it shall be a clear violation of Article 14[8] as it is arbitrary and illegal.
CONCLUSION:
It can be concluded that the juveniles and the adults form two different categories of people and judging an adult based on past criminal charges can be considered but in the case of a juvenile it cannot be a ground to judge. Hence the conviction as a juvenile by the Juvenile Board is to be kept secret and there is no requirement to disclose the details of his record during his employment and in any of his events during his life.
[1] Juvenile means a child below the age of 18 years. [2] Juvenile justice Act, 1986 [3] Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [4] Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 [5] Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2021 [6] No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. [7] K.S. Puttuswamy Vs Union of India [ 2017]AIR SC 4161 [8] The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India
Commentaires