Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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