Law May Be Harsh, But It Is the Law: Supreme Court Cancels Appointment for Concealment of Pending Criminal Cases in Government Job Form

“False Information in Attestation Forms Strikes at the Core of Trust in Public Employment” — In a decisive ruling underscoring the non-negotiable integrity standards for entry into public service, the Supreme Court of India, on January 12, 2026, set aside the reinstatement of a candidate whose appointment to the post of Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari was cancelled for deliberately concealing his criminal antecedents.

Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh reversed the concurrent findings of the Allahabad High Court which had earlier granted relief to the respondent by terming his non-disclosure as ‘trivial’.

“Not Once, But Twice”: Supreme Court Sees Pattern of Deliberate Concealment

The Court found that the respondent, despite having two criminal cases pending against him at the time of recruitment — one under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, and 325 IPC and another under Section 354D IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act — answered “No” to direct queries about such pendency in both the attestation form and verification form.

“Despite this clear stipulation as extracted supra the respondent submitted otherwise than the truth which was that there were cases pending against him… he submitted incorrect and false information,” the Court observed.

Crucially, both the forms carried explicit disclaimers that concealment or false information would render a candidate “ineligible for employment” and could lead to termination during service.

“Giving any false information in this application or concealing any material information will be treated as disqualification and may render the candidate unfit for Government service.”

The Court interpreted this clause strictly, emphasizing that the relevant date for assessing disclosure is the date of filling the forms, not the subsequent developments like acquittal or withdrawal of cases.

District Magistrate’s Clean Chit and Subsequent Affidavit Found Irrelevant

While the High Court had relied upon the fact that the District Magistrate had found no legal impediment to the appointment, and the respondent had later filed an affidavit voluntarily disclosing the pendency, the Supreme Court refused to accept these as curative actions.

“Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit,” the Court ruled.

The bench pointed out that such disclosure came only after verification processes had revealed the truth, and not at the time when truthful disclosure was legally expected. It also underscored that disclosure must be complete, timely, and candid, particularly in government recruitment.

Sympathy Cannot Override the Law

The Court invoked the Latin maxim “Juda lex sed lex” — the law may be harsh, but it is the law — to dismiss the plea that age, acquittal, or the hardship of job loss could excuse a conscious misstatement.

“The factum that he said ‘no’ to pending proceedings against him not once but twice, shows demonstrated mal-intent… Sympathy cannot supplant law,” the Court held, setting aside the High Court’s approach as misplaced in law.

The Court relied on precedent laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024) 5 SCC 264, but clarified that even under those rulings, deliberate concealment and repeated false answers disqualify a candidate from public service.

Upholding Sanctity of Public Service – Truth Must Be Told When Asked

This ruling is a powerful reiteration of the principle that truthful disclosure is foundational in the recruitment to government posts. The Supreme Court has affirmed that transparency, not technicality, must govern such selections.

In a time where competitive government recruitment is under intense scrutiny, this decision sends a strong message: honesty at the threshold is not optional — it is the very qualification.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2026