SC: Excuse minor past criminal acts of young people | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 20, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC: Excuse minor past criminal acts of young people

The Supreme Court has condoned a “minor indiscretion” by a Delhi Police head constable and set aside the order that sacked him from his services on the ground that he concealed his criminal antecedents prior to joining the force. HT reports.

delhi Updated: Mar 17, 2011 23:17 IST
HT Correspondent

The Supreme Court has condoned a “minor indiscretion” by a Delhi Police head constable and set aside the order that sacked him from his services on the ground that he concealed his criminal antecedents prior to joining the force.

A bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra noted that minor indiscretions by youngsters should be forgiven and they shouldn’t be branded criminals.

The court took the view that “youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.”

It upheld the Delhi High Court judgment and held that the cancellation of Sandeep Kumar’s candidature was illegal.

Referring to the incident on the basis of which the Delhi Police had quashed the man’s appointment, the bench said: “When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age, young people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be condoned.”

The Delhi Police had argued that Kumar had not mentioned his involvement in a criminal case under section 325/34 (causing grievous hurt).

The bench brushed aside its contention that Kumar had purposely hidden this information. “Probably, he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified,” the bench remarked.

Though Kumar had not disclosed the information while filling up the form for the post, he had furnished the details after his selection. He had also informed the authorities that he had been acquitted in the case after the dispute was settled amicably with the complainant.