PRAYAGRAJ/KANPUR (UP), Dec 14: The Allahabad High Court has instructed the Uttar Pradesh Government to appoint a man as an additional district judge after he was previously denied the position due to having faced two trials concerning accusations of espionage for Pakistan and sedition.
The court mandated the state to grant petitioner Pradeep Kumar an appointment letter by January 15, 2025. Kumar had successfully passed the higher judicial examination in 2017.
The ruling was made on a writ petition filed by Kumar and was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh, who noted, “The petitioner was ‘honourably acquitted’ in both criminal trials, and no veracity was found in the prosecution’s claims in either case.”
“Considering the aforementioned, the writ petition is deemed successful. It is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the State Government to ensure character verification of the petitioner within two weeks. Subsequently, upon completing all necessary formalities, the appointment letter may be issued to the petitioner no later than January 15, 2025. The petitioner can be appointed against any existing vacancies as of now,” the court stated.
Kumar had submitted his application for selection to the UP Higher Judicial Service under the UP Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination, 2016.
In his application, he disclosed the details of Session Trial No. 69 of 2004, which involved Sections 3, 6, and 9 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B IPC (pertaining to allegations of spying), as well as Session Trial No. 236 of 2004 under Section 124-A IPC (sedition) stemming from Case Crime No. 268 of 2002 at Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar.
Kumar and his family reside in the Meston Road area of Kanpur. He is the youngest of five siblings.
On March 6, 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge’s court in Kanpur Nagar acquitted Kumar in those trials.
He took part in the selection process and was declared successful. On August 18, 2017, the high court sent the list of selected candidates to the state government along with a recommendation for their appointments. However, Kumar’s appointment letter was not issued.
In its order dated December 6, the high court stated, “In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with instructions to the respondent No. 1 (state government) to present the matter regarding the petitioner’s appointment in the Higher Judicial Service of U.P. to the Hon’ble Governor of the State immediately within two weeks.”
The court acknowledged that it could not ignore the serious charge of espionage faced by the petitioner, which called for careful deliberation by the state authorities. Simultaneously, it was crucial to note that the petitioner had been “honourably acquitted” in the criminal trial, with no elements of truth found in the prosecution’s narrative.
Furthermore, the court noted, “There is no evidence for the state to conclude that the petitioner may have collaborated with any foreign intelligence service.”
The fact that he may have been on the “radar” of Indian intelligence agencies holds no significance, the court remarked.
“The claim that the petitioner’s father might have been suspended or dismissed from service on charges of bribery is also irrelevant to this case. A person should not be penalized or judged based on the actions of another, be it a parent or child. It is unfortunate that the respondent authorities have relied on corruption allegations made against the father of the current petitioner,” the high court bench stated.
The court further asserted, “To suggest that a citizen would continue to be suspected of alleged misconduct and thus deprived of the benefits of hard work and ‘honourable acquittal’ established by the court would not only indirectly penalize an innocent individual after his innocence has been confirmed but would also undermine the rule of law as guaranteed by the Constitution.”
It added that a criminal trial starts with a presumption of the accused person’s innocence.
Once the accused is “honourably acquitted” after a thorough review of all prosecution evidence, that presumption is solidified by a judicial ruling, the court emphasized, stating that no one should be able to look beyond it. (PTI)
Leave a Reply