Right To Protest Is Fundamental Right: Madras HC Holds That Petitioner Is Entitled To Employment In Police Once FIR Is Quashed
|While considering a writ petition challenging the refusal to employ the Petitioner in the police department due to a criminal case against him, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the authorities failed to consider that the Petitioner was simply exercising his right to protest by participating in a student-led demonstration. The Court noted that the crime case against the Petitioner had already been quashed by the High Court, and hence he was entitled to receive his appointment order.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri noted, “The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and definitely, it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied to as Grade-II Police Constable”.
Advocate R. Karunanidhi appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Advocate General P. Veera Kathiravan with Special Government Pleader N. Muthuvijayan appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner had applied for the post of Grade-II Constable after qualifying for the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, his application was rejected due to his involvement in a criminal case that was dropped for further action. Therefore, he filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the third Respondent (The Superintendent of Police) and directing the Respondents to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner and send him for training for the post of Grade II Police Constables (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force, Jail Warder and Firemen).
The Court noted that the Petitioner participated in a protest as a student and was implicated in the crime. But the High Court had already quashed the case, stating that protesting was a fundamental right. Despite this, the Petitioner was denied a job due to Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (TNSPSS Rules), the Court observed.
“The writ petitioner in this case while he was a student participated in the protest organized by fellow students protesting as against the NEET examination and the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right which is available to each and every citizen of this Country and for the purpose of participating in the said protest, the said crime number came to be filed…However, without considering the fact that the said crime number has already been quashed and consequently, the case was also referred on the basis of the High Court order, the appointing authorities, without application of mind, rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that the persons who are acquitted under benefit of doubt or hostility of complaint will be treated as involved in criminal case and he will not be considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS Rules or Rule 13 of TNPSS Rules”, the Court asserted
Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner was neither acquitted due to the benefit of the doubt nor due to the complainant's hostility. Rather, he was accused of a crime in an earlier stage that never resulted in the filing of a charge sheet. This case was closed based on a High Court's order, which stated that it was only a protest and did not have any criminal implications.
In this context, the Court stated, “However, the petitioner was neither acquitted on the benefit of doubt or hostility of the complainant, but the crime which was registered as against him in an earlier stage and never culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet and it was closed on the basis of the High Court order, where the High Court has already held that it was only a protest and it cannot have any criminal implication”.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order and directed the concerned authorities to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable.
Cause Title: Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board