Prayagraj/Kanpur (UP), Dec 14 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint as additional district judge a man who was denied appointment on the ground that he had faced two trials regarding alleged charges of spying for Pakistan as well as for sedition.
The court asked the state to issue appointment letter to petitioner Pradeep Kumar by January 15, 2025. He had successfully passed the higher judicial examination in 2017.
Passing the order on a writ petition filed by Kumar, a two-judge bench comprising justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh observed, “The petitioner was ‘honourably acquitted’ at two criminal trials faced by him and no element of truth was found in the prosecution story, in either case.” “In view of the above, the writ petition must succeed. It is allowed. Mandamus is issued to state government to ensure character verification of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Consequentially, upon completion of all formalities, appointment letter may be issued to the petitioner not later than 15th January 2025. The petitioner may be appointed against existing vacancies, as on date,” the court added.
Kumar had applied for selection to the UP Higher Judicial Service under the UP Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination, 2016.
In that application, he disclosed the facts pertaining to Session Trial No.69 of 2004 under Sections 3, 6, 9 of Official Secrets Act & Section 120-B IPC (allegations of spying) and Session Trial No.236 of 2004 under Section 124-A IPC (sedition) arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2002, Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar.
Kumar and his family live in Kanpur’s Meston road locality. He is the youngest of five siblings.
On March 6, 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge court of Kanpur Nagar had acquitted Kumar in those trials.
He participated in the selection process and was declared successful. On August 18, 2017, the high court forwarded to the state government the list of selected candidates and recommended their appointments. Appointment letter was not issued to Kumar.
The high court it its order dated December 6, said, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the respondent No.1 (state government) to place the matter of appointment of the petitioner in the Higher Judicial Service of the State of U.P. pursuant to the recommendation of the High Court dated August 18, 2017 before the Hon’ble Governor of the State immediately within two weeks.” The court observed that it cannot be denied that the petitioner faced a heavy charge of espionage and the matter required careful consideration by the state authorities. At the same time, it remained material and relevant that the petitioner was “honourably acquitted” at the criminal trial, with no element of truth found in the prosecution story, it said.
The court also observed, “No material exists with the state respondents to reach a conclusion that the petitioner may have worked for any foreign intelligence agency.” The fact that he may have been on the “radar” of the Indian intelligence agencies, itself means nothing, it said.
“The fact that the petitioner’s father may have been suspended/dismissed from service on charges of bribery etc. is equally extraneous to the issue. A person may not be penalised, and his character may not be judged for the act of another be it his father or son. It is indeed regrettable that the respondent authorities have also chosen to rely on the allegations of corruption levelled against the father of the present petitioner,” the high court bench said.
The court further said, “To say, a citizen would continue to be suspected of an offence alleged and therefore be deprived of fruits of hard labour and ‘honourable acquittal’ earned by him, would be, to not only vicariously penalise an innocent citizen after his innocence has been established in a court of law, but it would successfully militate against the rule of law itself, guaranteed by the Constitution.” It added that a criminal trial begins with a presumption of innocence of the person charged.
Once, the charged person is “honourably acquitted”, after full appraisal of all prosecution evidence, that presumption is confirmed and sealed, by judicial pronouncement made, it said, adding none may look beyond it. PTI COR RAJ ZMN
About the Author
