Rajasthan High Court: Devise Mechanism For Expunging Records Of Minor Offences By Youth To Aid Rehabilitation & Prevent Lifelong Barriers
The Rajasthan High Court held that a compassionate and reformative approach must be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the juvenile justice system must devise a mechanism for expunging minor offence records to enable rehabilitation and prevent “youthful mistakes from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.”
The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by an aspirant (Petitioner) directing the Respondents to consider his candidature for the post of ‘Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander.’ The Jodhpur Bench directed his appointment after noting that once he was acquitted by the competent Court, the Petitioner had no reason to believe “by any stretch of imagination” to treat himself either as a convict or a prisoner.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga held, “There is no gainsaying to observe that mere registration of an FIR does not reduce a citizen to the status of either a convict or not having a good character. Every citizen is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. In the case in hand it so transpires that the alleged role attributable to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to either impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by him or otherwise, even bordering moral turpitude.”
Advocate Sanjay Nahar represented the Petitioner, while AAG BL Bhati appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner had successfully cleared the selection process but his appointment was denied on the ground that he had prior criminal cases in which he was acquitted. The Petitioner was involved in three FIRs registered when he was a student. However, the said cases were quashed and he was acquitted.
The Departmental Committee, in its recommendation, rejected the Petitioner’s appointment, stating that a candidate seeking employment, if involved in any criminal case, was not entitled to appointment as he did not meet the criteria of having a sound character to the satisfaction of the employer. The requirement of having a good character is a sine qua non as per the condition of the advertisement, they argued.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “First and foremost it is pertinent to note that the relevant question seeking information from a candidate with regard to the criminal antecedents as put in the application form was "Are you ex-prisoner?". The petitioner, as on the cut off date of applying, i.e.23.06.2021, for the post in question had since already been acquitted in the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIRs registered against him when he was student, opted "No" as an answer. In my view, rightly so. He had no reason to believe by any stretch of imagination to treat himself either as a convict or a prisoner once he was acquitted by the competent court and the said acquittal had attained finality.”
The Bench held that a compassionate and reformative approach must be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. “Young people, particularly in their late teens and early twenties, are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. At this stage, they often act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well thought out. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society,” it further stated.
The Court referred to Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No.9808 of 2003), wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that acquittal under criminal law is final, and a person cannot be denied employment merely because the acquittal was not termed “honourable.” The Court also distinguished the present case from Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of an employer to assess suitability based on the nature of offences.
Consequently, the Court ordered that “a mechanism must be devised in juvenile justice system by expungement of records for minor offenses committed by youth. This will enable their easier rehabilitation and also prevent youthful mistakes from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondents to “give the benefit of the said interim order to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders for petitioner’s appointment pursuant to his selection and allow him to join the service, subject of course to his otherwise being eligible and meritorious in the selection process.”
Cause Title: Vikash Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:10078)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sanjay Nahar and Sandeep Kumar
Respondents: AAG BL Bhati; Advocate Sandeep Soni
