S. KIRUBAKAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) India lives in Villages said, Mahatma Gandhiji. The vast majority of the youth of this country from rural and poor family background continue to find it extremely difficult to compete for public employment with the youth who have urban and affluent family background. Most of the youth have an eye for small Government jobs, like elementary school teachers, police constables, office assistants, watchmen, masalchis, gardeners, etc. In this country, it is not uncommon, mostly in the case of poor, that trivial incidents are blown out of proportion and cases are registered by the police. In Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 6 CTC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that in the event, the allegations in the information prima facie make out cognizable offences, the police officer has no option but to register a case as it is his statutory obligation. It also happens that fearing for action against them, the police officers simply register FIRs as and when any information is laid alleging commission of cognizable offences, dehors the fact as to whether the information is reliable or credible. It is an undeniable fact that in this country we find that the laws relating to dowry harassment and domestic violence are often misused by naming the entire family members as accused in FIRs. Disputes among family members, disputes among neighbours and domestic disputes among close relatives, which are purely either civil or trivial in nature, are given the colour of crimes, taken to the police stations and cases are registered. It is our experience that even cases where borrowers of money under promissory notes, for failure to repay the amount as promised, are booked under criminal law by the police for cheating falling under section 420 of IPC. A man can be booked for the offence of overspeeding a motor vehicle and he may even admit the offence. A man may be booked for parking his motor vehicle in a "No Parking" area inadvertently. In this scenario, Are we to say that the youth, who are involved in these kinds of cases, are to be shown the door when they seek public employment? Are we to say that they are criminals and so, unfit for public employment? Are we to say that these youth are of bad character compelling in public interest and for public good to be denied public service? After the concept of plea bargaining has gained statutory recognition under the criminal law, in large number of cases involving petty offences, the parties enter into plea bargaining and pay a paltry sum as fine. Are we to say that they are of bad characters disentitled for public employment? Statutorily, some offences are treated as compoundable going by the nature of the ofences. In the cases ended in compromise, Are we to say that the young men involved in the said cases are unfit for public employment? These are the vexed questions often knocking at the doors of the Higher Judiciary.

(2.) Life is so precious. The right "to live a dignified life" is a human right recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Characterising these kinds of youth as unfit for public employment, it is often argued, would amount to stigmatising them thereby infringing upon their precious right to life. Is it only to speak from public platforms that correctional measures are to be taken to bring back the youth showing deviance to the mainstream of the society? The Executive has not declared it's policy to my knowledge on these cardinal questions of public importance. There is no policy document put in place so far. Post independence, on one occasion, in the "All India Seminar on Correctional Service" held in New Delhi in March 1969, it was deliberated to lay down guidelines pertaining to the problem of rehabilitation of ex-convicts with emphasis on the need for their employment under the Government. But, the outcome of the said seminar has not crystallised into any policy document. So long as such policy is not put in place, both by the Central Government and the respective State Government, litigations on these vexed questions will not vanish. Instead, it will be showing only increasing trend. In this situation often, it becomes necessary for courts to ponder over these questions. With regret and with great respect to the institution to which I am a part, I notice, the legal position is so fluid and answers to these questions could be, in very many cases, seen as "Judge Centric". On the very same questions the petitioners are now before this court.

(3.) These are the cases of two poor men who have been deprived of employment as "members of the Youth Brigade" constituted under Section 3 of the "Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Act, 2013" on the ground that they were involved in criminal cases. Are we to agree with the respondents that these petitioners do not possess good character and so they are unfit to be appointed as Youth Brigades? With this prelude, let us go into the issues.