The Supreme Court of India ruled that full and honest disclosure in government job applications is a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust. The Court held that hiding pending criminal cases cannot be excused later, even if the candidate is eventually acquitted.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has clearly ruled that giving full and truthful information while applying for a government job is not a mere technical or procedural step, but a core requirement based on honesty, fairness and public trust.
The Court upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a candidate selected for the post of Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari, holding that hiding material facts related to criminal cases cannot be excused later, even if the candidate is subsequently acquitted or later discloses the information on his own.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier upheld a Single Judge’s order setting aside the cancellation of the respondent’s appointment.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh reversed the High Court’s decision and restored the cancellation order.
The Bench observed,
“Proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands, of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the same stated conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process.”
The Court further emphasised that once an applicant deliberately suppresses facts, later developments cannot cure that defect. Referring to a settled legal principle, the Bench stated,
“There is a maxim in law to the effect that ‘juda lex sed lex’ which means the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The factum that he said ‘no’ to pending proceedings against him not once but twice, shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit”.
Advocate-on-Record Bhakti Vardhan Singh appeared for the appellant State of Uttar Pradesh, while Advocate-on-Record Kedar Nath Tripathy represented the respondent candidate.
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, which issued an advertisement for the posts of Samiksha Adhikari and Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari.
The respondent was selected and was required to submit an attestation form and a verification form. In both forms, he was specifically asked whether any criminal cases were pending against him. On both occasions, he answered “no”.
However, it later came to light that two criminal cases were pending against him at the relevant time. These included offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as offences under Section 354D of the IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
During police verification, the Superintendent of Police reported these pending cases, after which the District Magistrate was consulted regarding the suitability of the respondent for appointment.
Although the District Magistrate opined that the respondent was suitable, the respondent later filed an affidavit on his own stating that two cases were pending against him, claiming he was unaware that verification was already underway.
Once the suppression of facts was admitted and confirmed, the State authorities cancelled his appointment.
This led to litigation, where the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the respondent’s writ petition and set aside the cancellation. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this view, terming the undisclosed criminal cases as being of a “trivial nature”.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. It noted that the acquittal or dropping of proceedings happened much later and that, at the time of filling the forms as well as when the affidavit was filed, the criminal cases were still under investigation.
The Court also pointed out that the application forms clearly warned that concealment or false information would render a candidate unfit or ineligible for government service.
Explaining why suppression of criminal antecedents is a serious issue, the Bench observed,
“While the law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities.”
The Court further reiterated that sympathy cannot override the law, stating,
“…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.”
On these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and upheld the cancellation of the respondent’s appointment.
Cause Title:
State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar
2026 INSC 49
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Government Jobs
