CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC 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 Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Overrules Minor Application Error Disqualification: Emphasizes “Law Does Not Concern Itself With Trifles

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set a significant precedent by ruling in favor of Vashist Narayan Kumar in the Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, overturned the decision of the High Court, thereby reinstating Kumar’s candidature for the post of Police Constable in Bihar. The case centered around the rejection of Kumar’s application due to a minor discrepancy in his date of birth.

Kumar, who hails from a small village in Bihar, aspired to become a Police Constable. He cleared all necessary examinations and tests but faced a setback when his candidature was rejected due to a mismatch between the date of birth on his application form and his educational certificates. The application form, filled in a cyber café, erroneously listed his birth date as 08.12.1997 instead of the correct 18.12.1997.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed, “The error in the application is trivial and did not play any part in the selection process.” Emphasizing the principle of ‘De minimis non curat lex’ – the law does not concern itself with trifles – the Court recognized the ground realities of digital access and the inadvertent nature of the error. Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated, “We cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed.”

The Court’s decision underscores a compassionate and realistic approach towards minor, non-advantageous errors in application processes. Kumar’s success in all selection stages was a pivotal factor in the judgment. The Court has directed the State of Bihar to consider Kumar as having “passed” in the selection process and to issue an appointment letter, considering no other disqualifications exist.

This judgment is poised to impact future cases where candidates face rejection due to inconsequential errors in applications. It marks a significant step towards acknowledging and accommodating the challenges faced by individuals, especially those from less privileged backgrounds, in navigating digital platforms and bureaucratic procedures.

Date of Decision: 2nd January 2024

VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

 

Latest Legal News