While the debate on prohibiting convicted persons from contesting elections is settled, there seems to be no judicial consensus on barring persons with a past criminal record from being recruited in the police department.
To settle this issue, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has recommended constitution of a larger bench comprising of a quorum of five or more judges to go into it.
Justice S Nagamuthu made the recommendation while delivering the verdict on a batch of petitions from persons whose candidatures for the post of Grade-II Police Constables were rejected by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) despite having cleared the written examination and physical fitness test.
The authorities had rejected them by citing Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, because during verification of their antecedents it came to light that they had a criminal record.
Considering the complicated questions of law raised in the petitions, the judge had requested senior counsel M Ajmal Khan to assist the court as amicus curiae. Khan pointed out different courts had given varying judgments on the issue.
For instance, a single judge of the Madras High Court had upheld the validity of the amended provision of Rule 14 (b) (iv) in the V Veeramani and Another Vs State of Tamil Nadu case. In subsequent cases of similar nature, a full bench, headed by then Madras High Court Chief Justice A P Shah had also upheld the validity of the said provision.
Further the full bench had observed that a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified. Similar judgments were passed in many other cases by single judges.
However, in a case filed by one M Vijaya Baskar, Justice Vinod K Sharma took a different view and held that persons who were acquitted in criminal cases much
before the commencement of process of selection could not be denied the right to be recruited as police personnel.
Another judge, Justice Hari Paranthaman also directed the authorities to appoint candidates who were honourably acquitted. Likewise, Justice R S Ramanathan had taken the view that until the larger bench of the Supreme Court (Jainendra Singh Vs State of UP) decided the issue, the Madras High Court’s Full Bench verdict cannot be taken as final.
Citing these differing judgments, Justice Nagamuthu said: “The legal position is so volatile so far as this State is concerned. The Government itself appears to be confused as to whether to follow the verdict of the full bench or the judgments of the single judges delivered subsequently referring to the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court.”
Incidentally, Justice Nagamuthu too expressed doubts on the full bench’s inference of the Rule. Hence, he directed the court Registry to place all these cases before the Chief Justice of the High Court to decide on constituting a larger bench to address the issue.