The term ‘moral turpitude,’ while not explicitly defined, is understood to refer to actions that are contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals, and suggest a depraved or wicked character or disposition of the person involved in such conduct, as per the Supreme Court’s observation in P. Mohanasundaram vs. the President (2013).

What is this case?

  • In the case of “Deepak Kumar vs. Union of India,” Deepak Kumar was appointed as a constable in 2022 on compassionate grounds.
  • However, his appointment was revoked when he disclosed his acquittal in a 2018 criminal case under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and various IPC sections, including those related to causing harm by poison, kidnapping, and criminal intimidation, among others.
  • Despite being acquitted of all charges by a Kaithal court in 2019, Kumar’s appointment was cancelled due to his involvement in the case, in line with a Home Ministry policy for appointments in the Central Armed Police Forces.
  • The policy states that candidates who have been charged with serious offences or moral turpitude and later acquitted, either due to the benefit of doubt or because witnesses turned hostile out of fear of reprisal, will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the CAPF.

How are honourable acquittals different from acquittals based on the benefit of doubt?

  • The court, referencing its 2023 decision in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, emphasized that terms like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted” are not to be taken lightly.
  • It stressed that courts must scrutinize acquittal judgments during departmental proceedings and should focus on the substance of the ruling rather than the terminology used.
  • In the case of Bhag Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Baldev Singh (2005), a two-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that simply using phrases like “benefit of doubt” or “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” should not be allowed to downgrade an acquittal due to lack of evidence.
  • Furthermore, in Joginder Singh vs UT of Chandigarh, another two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while considering the appointment of a constable, asserted that an acquittal is “honorable” in every sense.
  • The court stated that a candidate should not be deemed unsuitable for public employment and denied appointment merely because he was acquitted in a criminal case registered against him.

What is the law on appointing candidates involved in criminal cases?

  • In the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the appointment of a candidate involved in a criminal case.
  • The court ruled that any information provided to the employer about a candidate’s criminal history, whether it’s a conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pending case, must be accurate and complete.
  • If the candidate is convicted in a non-trivial case, the employer has the right to cancel the candidate’s appointment or terminate their services.
  • However, if the candidate has been acquitted in a case involving moral turpitude or a serious offense on technical grounds, or if they have been given the benefit of the doubt, the employer can consider all relevant facts and make an appropriate decision regarding the employee’s continuation. The court emphasized that the final decision rests with the employer.
  • In a similar case, Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India (2023), the court stated that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically qualify a candidate for appointment. The employer still has the discretion to consider the candidate’s past and assess their suitability.
  • In another case, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhupendra Yadav (2023), the Supreme Court stated that the criteria applied in cases where the appointment sought is related to a law enforcement agency should be much stricter than those applied to a routine vacancy.

What did the court rule in this case?

  • In its ruling on January 9, the court stated that if an individual has been acquitted in a case involving moral turpitude, with the benefit of reasonable doubt extended, the employer has the discretion to consider all relevant facts before making a decision.
  • The court observed that the petitioner in the current case had disclosed the concluded criminal case “voluntarily and truthfully,” and therefore, instructed the Centre to reevaluate his appointment.
  • The court acknowledged the difficulty of securing a government job in the country and stated that while the petitioner’s appointment was not a fundamental or vested right, denying him the position and disregarding his honesty in revealing his credentials would be akin to indirectly punishing him for an offence from which he has been acquitted.
Conclusion- The court rulings emphasize the importance of considering all relevant facts in cases where individuals acquitted in criminal cases seek employment, particularly in law enforcement agencies. The courts have underscored that an acquittal, especially one involving moral turpitude, does not automatically guarantee appointment. However, they also stress that denying appointment to individuals who have been honest about their past could be seen as an indirect punishment for an offence from which they have been acquitted. These rulings underline the importance of honesty, transparency, and the consideration of all relevant facts in making such decisions. The final decision, as the courts have reiterated, rests with the employer.