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

108
0
Share:
fundamental judges rank qualifications Knowledge Software marriage rent

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

Download Judgment

Share: