The Delhi Excessive Court docket lately held that the Supreme Court docket’s determination on the executive facet to not recruit these with legal antecedents can’t be termed as “inappropriate or arbitrary”.
Upholding an order on the executive facet of the Supreme Court docket, rejecting the candidature of a junior court docket attendant (JCA) applicant, owing to a pending legal case on the time of the recruitment, the Delhi Excessive Court docket, in an order on April 9, held that “no fault could be discovered” with the Supreme Court docket’s determination “to exclude these with legal antecedents”.
The applicant, Prayas Tyagi, moved the Delhi Excessive Court docket in 2023, difficult an order dated October 21, 2022, whereby his candidature for the put up of JCA within the Supreme Court docket was cancelled due to a legal case pending towards him. Tyagi was searching for course from the Delhi Excessive Court docket to nominate him to the put up.
An FIR was filed towards Tyagi and others in 2020 on the Bahadurgarh police station in Uttar Pradesh, following a grievance by Tyagi’s spouse, whose marriage with him has now been dissolved. A trial court docket additionally subsequently acquitted him of the offence on February 10 this 12 months. It was additionally Tyagi’s case that his case for appointment be reconsidered in mild of the acquittal.
Justice Prateek Jalan, nevertheless, dominated that “such a course” is just not mandated by legislation, “and even administratively possible,” noting that the recruitment course of began in 2018 and Tyagi’s candidature was cancelled in 2022 earlier than he was acquitted.
Justice Jalan reasoned, “(this)…successfully places in place a neverending train, the place the candidature of every candidate would essentially must be thought-about a number of instances, relying on the standing of the legal proceedings towards him at every stage.”
Tyagi was obligated to reveal his legal historical past in the course of the software course of for the place, which he did.
Story continues beneath this advert
Justice Prateek Jalan, whereas refusing to grant Tyagi’s request in an order on April 9, considering previous judicial precedents, recorded, “For the very best court docket within the land to take a strict view with regard to legal antecedents of those that serve in its institution can hardly be thought to be inappropriate or arbitrary… These within the service of the courts, extra so the Supreme Court docket, discharge delicate capabilities, and no fault could be discovered with the choice to exclude these with legal antecedents.”
