Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a public employer has the right to deem a candidate unfit for employment if he/she was previously acquitted of severe offences solely based on the benefit of doubt. In legal terms, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused when no solid evidence exists to prove their guilt or if the case fails to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The decision came after an individual, who had successfully passed the recruitment process for a constable position in the Rajasthan Police Service, wasn’t appointed due to his history with a criminal case. Upon investigation, it was discovered that although the person was acquitted, the charges against him weren’t trivial. The candidate faced serious allegations and was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt, not honourable acquittal by the Court.
The Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court stated that just an acquittal doesn’t necessarily establish eligibility; what matters is whether the acquittal is clean. Employers have the full right to inspect a candidate’s past records and assess their suitability for the job opportunity. Factors such as the job profile and severity of the charge the candidate was acquitted of should be considered. The court carefully distinguished between an honourable acquittal and an acquittal on the grounds of the benefit of doubt. To be deemed suitable for public employment, a person should be honourably acquitted from a severe crime. However, the court urged employers not to reject applications mechanically, considering job opportunities are rare commodities in the country.
Honourable Acquittal Versus Acquittal by Benefit of Doubt
A trial court, after thoroughly examining the presented evidence and testimonies, can take one of three actions: convict the individual, acquit the individual unconditionally (honourable acquittal), or acquit the individual by extending the benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The term ‘Honourable acquittal’ isn’t officially defined under Indian laws; it’s a concept introduced by Indian judiciary. If an accused person is acquitted after full examination of prosecution evidence, and the prosecution fails to prove the charges against the accused, it is considered an honourable acquittal. On the other hand, when a person is acquitted due to lack of strong evidence, implying a failure on the prosecution’s side to establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”, it is termed as an acquittal by the benefit of doubt.
