Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.
Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents: Supreme Court of India cautions employers against automatic termination
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Shatrughn Yadav vs. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (F.A.C.T.) and Ors.[1] examined whether an employer can terminate an employee solely because the employee did not disclose a criminal case in a verification form, without first assessing whether the employee knew about the case and whether the circumstances warranted termination. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India[2] and held that termination of employment for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents cannot be automatic or mechanical.
The judgment underscores that adverse action based on criminal antecedent disclosures must be preceded by a reasoned and objective assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case.
Brief facts
Mr. Shatrughn Yadav (“Employee”) was appointed as a technician (Process) by the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (“Employer”) on May 5, 2021. At the time of joining, the Employee submitted an attestation form declaring that no criminal case was pending against him.
Subsequently, police verification revealed that the police had registered a Non-Cognizable Report (“NCR”) against the Employee in 2019 under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Based on this information, the Employer issued a show cause notice asking the Employee to explain why his services should not be terminated for furnishing false information in the attestation form.
The Employee responded that he had no knowledge of the NCR. He relied upon a certificate issued by the police in 2020 stating that there were no adverse entries against him. He later produced records showing that the police had deleted his name from the list of accused persons after the investigation found no evidence. He also contended that he had never been summoned, questioned, or arrested in connection with the NCR.
Despite the Employee’s explanation, the Employer terminated his services on August 5, 2023. The Employee challenged the termination before the High Court of Kerala. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench declined to interfere.[3] The Employee then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- On maintainability, the Supreme Court considered whether the writ petition could be heard even though the Employer argued that the Employee should have pursued the alternative remedy under the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the dispute involved questions of fact?
- Whether the Employer’s termination of the Employee was permissible in law in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Findings and analysis
Issue 1
The Supreme Court held that an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge concerns the legality or validity of the termination order. Therefore, the availability of a remedy under the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not by itself prevent the High Court of Kerala from examining the termination.
Issue 2
The Supreme Court analysed the settled legal framework governing non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and reaffirmed that the principles laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India continue to govern such cases. The Supreme Court observed that suppression presupposes knowledge of the fact allegedly concealed. A person cannot be accused of suppressing information of which he had no knowledge.
In this case, the Employee consistently maintained that he was unaware of the NCR. The Supreme Court found support for this claim in the police character certificate dated July 9, 2020, issued after the NCR was registered on April 3, 2019, and in later records showing that his name was removed from the list of accused persons. The records also showed that he had never been summoned or arrested. The Supreme Court rejected the Employer’s argument that the Employee must have known about the NCR because his parents were also named in it. In the absence of evidence that his parents informed him, the argument was based only on surmise. The Supreme Court therefore held that the Employee had established, through documentary evidence, that he lacked knowledge of the NCR at the relevant time.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that a mere assertion of ignorance would not suffice in every case. The burden lies on the employee to substantiate such a claim through cogent material. Otherwise, the disclosure requirements in the verification forms would become meaningless.
Based on the cases of Umesh Chandra Yadav vs. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Ors.[4] and Ravindra Kumar vs. State of UP[5], the Supreme Court reiterated that a criminal antecedent does not automatically require termination. Employers must evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including:
- the type of suppression and the nature of the allegations;
- the employee’s alleged role in, and the gravity of, the offence;
- the nature of the post and its duties; and
- the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings, if concluded.
The Supreme Court emphasised that employers must apply their mind before passing a termination order and cannot act mechanically merely because a criminal antecedent has come to light.
The Supreme Court summarised that employers must undertake a 2 (two) pronged assessment before terminating employment on grounds of suppression of criminal antecedents:
- determine if there was actual suppression or false information, having regard to the employee’s knowledge and the circumstances in which the declaration was made; and
- assess if the criminal antecedent and any suppression are serious enough to justify termination, after considering the nature of the offence, the post concerned, the duties attached to the position, and the outcome of the criminal proceedings (if concluded).
The Supreme Court found that the Employer had satisfied neither requirement. The authorities assumed that the mere existence of the NCR automatically rendered the Employee unsuitable for employment. They also made no specific finding on the nature of the offence or its impact on the post and failed to consider the Employee’s subsequent discharge.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the termination order was unsustainable in law as it failed both limbs of this test. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the Employee with consequential benefits, while restricting back wages to 50%.
Contrast: Bappa Barai vs. Union of India
In contrast, in Bappa Barai and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.[6], the Supreme Court upheld the discharge of candidates recruited to the Railway Protection Force (“RPF”) and the Railway Protection Special Force who answered ‘No’ to questions asking whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted, even though criminal cases were pending against them. The employer discharged the candidates during training.
In the first round of litigation, the High Court of Allahabad set aside the 2015 discharge orders and directed reconsideration under Avtar Singh (supra). The employer then passed detailed, reasoned orders in 2017, which the High Court of Allahabad upheld.
The attestation form specifically asked candidates whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted and warned that false information or suppression could lead to disqualification or termination. Despite the pending cases, the candidates answered ‘No’. The Supreme Court noted that Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987 framed under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957, and Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice reinforced these requirements and clearly stated the consequences of non-disclosure.
The Supreme Court held that the candidates knew about the pending cases, and there was no pleading that they were unaware of them. It also rejected the parity argument. Candidates who were reinstated stood on a different footing: some had been acquitted before filling in the attestation form, others had been reinstated under court orders, and a few had been found suitable after case-specific review because the allegations were trivial. Those circumstances did not apply to the appellants.
Bappa Barai (supra) shows the other side of the analysis. Where candidates knowingly denied pending criminal cases despite a specific attestation form and clear warnings, and the employer later reconsidered each case and recorded reasons, discharge could be upheld. The Supreme Court distinguished cases involving earlier acquittals, court-ordered reinstatement, or trivial allegations. Read with this judgment, the decisions show that knowledge, the wording of the form, the nature of the post and offence, and the outcome of the proceedings all matter. Non-disclosure is not an automatic ground for adverse action.
Conclusion
For employers, this decision highlights the need to verify the employee’s knowledge and document a case-specific assessment before taking any adverse action against an employee.
Read together, these judgements show that the Supreme Court is not lenient toward dishonest candidates but expects employers to act fairly and on evidence. Non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. The outcome depends on the employee’s knowledge of the case and whether the criminal antecedent genuinely affects suitability for the role.
In Bappa Barai (supra), the discharges survived because the declarations were clearly false and the employer re-examined each case and issued reasoned orders. On the other hand, in this judgment, termination failed because the employer assumed unsuitability rather than assessing the facts.
A sound approach therefore begins at hiring, with a specific attestation form that clearly identifies the arrests, prosecutions, and pending cases to be disclosed and spells out the consequences of a false answer or suppression. When an undisclosed case surfaces later, employers should issue a show cause notice and then genuinely consider the employee’s explanation and supporting documents. The decision should then weigh the seriousness of the allegation, the employee’s role and duties, and the outcome of the proceedings, and record reasons to demonstrate a case-specific assessment.
This Prism has been prepared by:
|
Preetha Soman |
Rebecca Thomas |
Nandini Singh |
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.
1 (2026) INSC 829, (decided on August 11, 2026)
[2] (2016) 8 SCC 471
[3] Judgment and order dated July 4, 2025, of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.414 of 2025
[4] (2022) 14 SCC 244
[5] (2024) INSC 131
[6] 2026 INSC 882 (decided on August 18, 2026)
