Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High 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