The Delhi High Court recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision on the administrative side not to recruit those with criminal antecedents cannot be termed as “inappropriate or arbitrary”.
Upholding an order on the administrative side of the Supreme Court, rejecting the candidature of a junior court attendant (JCA) applicant, owing to a pending criminal case at the time of the recruitment, the Delhi High Court, in an order on April 9, held that “no fault can be found” with the Supreme Court’s decision “to exclude those with criminal antecedents”.
The applicant, Prayas Tyagi, moved the Delhi High Court in 2023, challenging an order dated October 21, 2022, whereby his candidature for the post of JCA in the Supreme Court was cancelled because of a criminal case pending against him. Tyagi was seeking direction from the Delhi High Court to appoint him to the post.
An FIR was filed against Tyagi and others in 2020 at the Bahadurgarh police station in Uttar Pradesh, following a complaint by Tyagi’s wife, whose marriage with him has now been dissolved. A trial court also subsequently acquitted him of the offence on February 10 this year. It was also Tyagi’s case that his case for appointment be reconsidered in light of the acquittal.
Justice Prateek Jalan, however, ruled that “such a course” is not mandated by law, “or even administratively feasible,” noting that the recruitment process started in 2018 and Tyagi’s candidature was cancelled in 2022 before he was acquitted.
Justice Jalan reasoned, “(this)…effectively puts in place a neverending exercise, where the candidature of each candidate would necessarily have to be considered several times, depending on the status of the criminal proceedings against him at each stage.”
Tyagi was obligated to disclose his criminal history during the application process for the position, which he did.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Prateek Jalan, while refusing to grant Tyagi’s request in an order on April 9, taking into consideration past judicial precedents, recorded, “For the highest court in the land to take a strict view with regard to criminal antecedents of those who serve in its establishment can hardly be regarded as inappropriate or arbitrary… Those in the service of the courts, more so the Supreme Court, discharge sensitive functions, and no fault can be found with the decision to exclude those with criminal antecedents.”
