Skip to main content

HC: Acquitted Men Can't Join Police - Madras HC

In a landmark ruling, a five-judge bench of the Madras High Court here by a majority ruling has held that persons acquitted from criminal cases or suppressing information about their past brush with law can be disqualified from joining the Police Department.

The verdict sets to rest past interpretations to the contrary by various single judges of the High Court. In essence, the larger bench by a 4:1 majority has upheld the February 2008 judgment (Manikandan Case) laid down by the three-judge Full Bench of the High Court disallowing those acquitted in criminal cases from being recruited as policemen as per Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules.

The larger bench comprising Justices R Sudhakar, S Tamilvanan, A Selvam, M Sathyanarayanan and B Rajendren, was constituted by then Chief Justice R K Agrawal on a reference by Justice S Nagamuthu last year.

Delivering a common verdict, the four members of the larger bench, except for Justice Tamilvanan, upheld the constitutionalist of Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Police Service Rules.

The Rule says: (a) A person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and  (b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/HC-Acquitted-Men-Cant-Join-Police/2014/02/28/article2081809.ece#.UxAzNfmSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more