The Supreme Court of India has ruled that full and truthful disclosure in government job applications is a basic requirement based on fairness, integrity and public trust. The Court held that hiding criminal cases undermines the recruitment process and sympathy cannot override the law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has clearly said that giving full and correct information while applying for a government job is not just a technical or formal requirement, but a core duty based on honesty, fairness and public trust.
These observations were made by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while allowing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government. The appeal challenged a May 2025 judgment of a division bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld an earlier order of a single judge.
The case related to the cancellation of the appointment of a man selected as a ‘Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari’.
His appointment was cancelled by the authorities after it was found that he had hidden information about two criminal cases that were pending against him at the time he filled his application and verification forms.
While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court underlined that sympathy cannot replace the law. The bench said,
“It is also a settled position in law that sympathy cannot supplant law. As such, 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,”.
The Court explained that government jobs usually attract hundreds or even thousands of candidates for a single post. All applicants compete under the same conditions, and therefore strict and careful verification of each candidate is essential to maintain fairness and the credibility of the recruitment process.
According to the bench, when a candidate hides information about criminal antecedents, it directly affects this process. It prevents the appointing authority from making a proper and informed decision about whether the candidate is suitable for public service.
Reiterating the importance of transparency, the Court said,
“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,”.
The bench further clarified that the law does recognise that in some cases, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding facts, non-disclosure may not always be fatal. However, it remains a serious lapse. The seriousness becomes much greater when such non-disclosure happens more than once.
The Court observed that repeated suppression of facts cannot be treated as a mistake or oversight. It reflects deliberate concealment. In this context, the bench said,
“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 judgment also referred to the recruitment process initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in March 2021 for the posts of ‘Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari’. After being selected, the candidate was required to submit an attestation form and later a verification form.
In both forms, a specific question was asked about whether any criminal cases were pending against the applicant. On both occasions, the man answered “no”. Later, it was discovered that two criminal cases were in fact pending against him at that time.
Following the cancellation of his appointment, the candidate approached the High Court. The single judge allowed his petition, noting that the district magistrate had found no legal obstacle to his appointment and that he had not been chargesheeted in those cases. The High Court also took note of the fact that he later disclosed the pending cases on his own.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. It said that acquittal or dropping of proceedings were developments that happened later. At the time the forms were filled, the investigation in the criminal cases was still ongoing.
The bench made it clear, stating,
“It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, he submitted incorrect and false information,”.
The Court also referred to a well-known legal maxim meaning that the law may appear harsh, but it must still be followed. It concluded that the candidate’s later acquittal or his attempt to disclose the facts at a later stage could not work in his favour, as the suppression of material information had already taken place at the crucial stage of recruitment.
By setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that honesty and full disclosure are non-negotiable requirements for anyone seeking entry into public service.
Read More Reports On Government Jobs
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
