E-Paper
SC denies judicial post to man for ‘suppressing’ criminal past
The Supreme Court ruled that a lack of moral integrity disqualifies a person from becoming a judge, affirming the rejection of Mukesh Kumar Chaudhri's candidature.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a person lacking moral uprightness and truthfulness has “no right to become a judge,” as it affirmed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to reject the candidature of a man for the state judicial services over suppression of his criminal past.
“Do you have the moral fabric to become a judge? Look at your conduct. You do not even have the sense of truthfulness to come clear before us and admit that you were prosecuted in two cases,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the counsel for Mukesh Kumar Chaudhri, affirming the high court’s May judgment.
The bench also pointedly remarked on Chaudhri’s change of surname during the recruitment process. “As Mukesh Kumar Verma, you were involved in two cases. So, the next time you appeared in the judicial service exam, you became ‘Mukesh Kumar Chaudhri’… and in a blink, all your previous cases vanished,” it said.
Chaudhari cleared the civil judge recruitment examination in 2021, but his candidature was rejected on October 24, 2024, following a recommendation from the high court’s administrative committee. The rejection cited suppression of criminal antecedents; in his application forms, Chaudhri had marked “Not Applicable” against queries about past criminal cases.
Records however showed that in March 2008, two first information reports (FIRs) for motorcycle theft were registered in Panna against a man named Mukesh Kumar Verma. The cases ended in acquittals in 2009 and 2010. The high court found that Chaudhri had earlier disclosed these cases when applying for other posts, including an earlier civil judge selection and for the post of law clerk, but had failed to do so in the 2021 application, using instead the name “Mukesh Kumar Chaudhri.”
In its judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed: “The petitioner had not only suppressed the criminal antecedents but also changed his surname from Mukesh Kumar ‘Verma’ to Mukesh Kumar ‘Choudhary’… When he applied in 2021, he used the new surname and did not disclose the antecedents.”
While Chaudhri argued that the name change was to align with his caste certificate, the court noted that in previous applications when his mark sheets bore the name “Verma”, he had made the disclosures. The high court distinguished his case from that of another candidate with a prior criminal case, noting that the latter had truthfully disclosed his history and the offence was less serious.
Dismissing his plea, the high court stressed that “honesty and full disclosure are essential for entry into judicial service” and that suppression of facts “strikes at the root” of integrity.
The Supreme Court echoed the high court’s reasoning, underscoring that judicial service demands the highest standards of probity. “You should have had the courage to admit that although you faced two cases, you were acquitted. Instead, you concealed them,” the bench observed.
The top court made it clear that the candidate’s eventual acquittal did not excuse the suppression. “For a judge, truthfulness is not optional -- it is foundational,” remarked the bench, refusing to interfere with the high court’s dismissal of the writ petition.
