In SLP (C) No. 678 of 2021-SC- Power conferred under Article 136 of Constitution has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases, reaffirms Apex Court
Justices Ajay Rastogi & Bela M. Trivedi [28-02-2023]

Read Judgment: IMTIYAZ AHMAD MALLA v. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 9, 2023: While refusing to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition instituted by the petitioner who was found to be unstable for the post of Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police due to his involvement in a criminal case.

Referring to the judgments of the Top Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal & R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and Another , the Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi said, “In all the above cases, the requirement of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been highly emphasised.”

The facts of the case were such that the  petitioner had successfully participated in the selection process conducted in 2008-2009 for the post of constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police, and he was issued an appointment letter. He was deputed to the Police Training School, Manigam for undergoing the nine months BRTC course. The Finger Print Bureau (CPPB) and NCRB East, New Delhi had figured out that the petitioner was involved in a case registered under Section 379 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 6 of Forest Act which was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. 

During the course of inquiry, a summary of allegations and charge-sheet were served to the petitioner. It was alleged that in the said criminal case, the petitioner was released on bail after four days of his arrest, and therefore the petitioner had good knowledge of his involvement in the criminal case and that he had consciously concealed the said information.  

The Director General of Police passed the order stating inter alia that in view of the criminal background of the petitioner, he was found unsuitable for the post of constable in the disciplined force.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said writ petition came to be dismissed. The aggrieved petitioner therefore filed the LPA, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order and hence, the SLP was filed.

The Bench noticed the fact that the High Court in the impugned judgment had also elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the issues involved, while upholding the order of the Single Bench to the effect that the Director General being the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, was the best judge to consider the suitability of the petitioner for induction into the police force. 

“The impugned order being just and proper, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench held.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench asserted, “It is well settled position of law that though the scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, the power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases.”