The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to disclose pending criminal cases in job application forms for government posts amounts to a serious breach of trust, affirming that such concealment cannot be brushed aside even if the applicant is later acquitted.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, while allowing an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh government, overturned the Allahabad High Court’s May 2025 judgment that had reinstated a man whose appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari was cancelled due to suppression of information about two pending criminal proceedings.
The court observed that proper and complete disclosure in job applications is not a “simple procedural formality” but a fundamental expectation of fairness, integrity, and public trust. The bench invoked the legal maxim dura lex sed lex — the law may be harsh, but it is the law — to reinforce its point that sympathy cannot override the need for legal compliance in public employment.
“While we acknowledge that loss of a government job is not an easy loss to come to terms with, at the same time, awareness of consequences is a necessary component of actions,” the Court said.
In March 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a recruitment notice for the posts of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was selected and later submitted attestation and verification forms, in which he denied the pendency of any criminal cases.
However, an inquiry revealed that two criminal cases were in fact pending against him at the time. Based on this suppression, his appointment was cancelled.
Challenging this, the respondent moved the Allahabad High Court. The single judge had ruled in his favour, noting that the district magistrate had found no legal impediment to his appointment and that he had not been chargesheeted. The High Court also observed that the respondent had later disclosed the cases himself and had been acquitted.
The top court rejected the High Court’s approach, clarifying that the relevant legal test must be applied at the time the form was filled — not with the benefit of hindsight. The Court stressed that:
- The candidate knowingly gave false information on two separate occasions.
- Even if charges are later dropped or the candidate is acquitted, the initial suppression remains a material misrepresentation.
- Repeated non-disclosure cannot be treated as accidental or trivial; it indicates a “deliberate concealment”.
“When an applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it undermines the selection process by depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment,” the bench noted.
The court further emphasized that given the competitive nature of government exams, fairness demands that all candidates be held to the same standards of transparency.
This ruling adds to the growing body of Supreme Court jurisprudence requiring absolute candour in public employment applications. While prior judgments have allowed for some leniency in minor or old offences depending on context, the present ruling underscores that deliberate concealment — regardless of later acquittal — can justify cancellation of appointments.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appointment stood cancelled.
