Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Madras High Court Quashes Candidature Rejection, Upholds Right to Protest as Fundamental Right

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court, in a bench led by the Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, quashed the rejection of a petitioner’s candidature for the post of Grade II Police Constable. The judgment, delivered on August 1, 2023, upholds the petitioner’s right to protest as a fundamental right and emphasizes an employer’s discretion in considering antecedents while making appointments.

The case centered around the petitioner’s alleged involvement in a criminal case related to a protest organized against the NEET examination. The petitioner, who participated in the protest as a student, faced criminal charges under Sections 143, 188, 353, 295, and 297 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court had previously quashed the case, asserting that the protest did not involve violent activities.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri noted, “The right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right which is available to each and every citizen of this Country.” The Court’s decision was influenced by a precedent set by the case of Sathish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India, where it was highlighted that employers possess the authority to consider antecedents even if a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded criminal case.

The Court clarified that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically guarantee a candidate’s appointment and that the nature of the job must also be taken into account. The bench observed that the petitioner’s participation in the protest should not lead to a criminal implication affecting his job application.

Quashing the impugned order, the Court directed the authorities to issue an appointment order to the petitioner, allowing him to proceed for training as a Grade II Police Constable. The judgment reaffirms the significance of safeguarding the right to protest while recognizing an employer’s prerogative to consider antecedents in appointment decisions.

The case was represented by Mr. R. Karunanidhi for the petitioner and Mr. P. Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. N. Muthuvijayan for the respondents.

Date of Decision: 01.08.2023

Arunkanth  VS Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Latest Legal News