“What survives with the respondent state authorities is a lingering belief or suspicion that the petitioner had spied for a foreign country,” the court stated. However, it added that this suspicion lacked any fresh or objective evidence beyond the original trial.The court criticised the state’s reliance on outdated and irrelevant materials from the trial, declaring that “neither suspicion nor simple belief” without objective material could guide the state’s decision to withhold the appointment.The court underscored that Kumar’s acquittal in espionage-related criminal trials must be viewed with fairness, particularly in light of his “honourable acquittal”.It observed that merely being suspected of an offence, without any proven wrongdoing, could not be used as a basis to deny a citizen his/her constitutional rights. “To be suspected of an offence is not an offence or a scar on a citizen’s character,” the bench said, emphasising that the fact Kumar was on the “radar” of intelligence agencies was inconsequential in the absence of any factual evidence.A report of the “military authority” to the Kanpur District Magistrate in July 2019 had stated that Kumar was arrested in a joint operation by the STF and Military Intelligence on June 13, 2002, based on inputs received from “sister intelligence agencies”.The report had alleged that Kumar had come in contact of Faizan Illahi, an owner of a photostat shop and who allegedly asked him to “provide him some information on telephone in exchange of money”. The report alleged that Kumar, looking for a quick buck, shared sensitive information of the Kanpur cantonment in exchange for money.The High Court took note of the same report saying: “Unless a citizen is reasonably suspected to be involved in an illegal or other activity that may invite adverse civil consequences, the fact that an intelligence agency or police authority may opine -purely subjectively and thus suspect that such a citizen had indulged in any illegal nature of activity or to have performed such act, without any supportive objective material, may remain a wholly inactionable belief, therefore, extraneous to the issue of character certification of the concerned citizen,” the bench said in its order.The court also rejected the argument that the petitioner’s unemployment status or his financial struggles should be taken into account. It pointed out that many innocent people could face unfair suspicions due to such circumstances, and it would be absurd to base judgment solely on an individual’s financial condition.Moreover, the bench also rejected the state’s attempt to bring up the allegations against Kumar’s father, who had been dismissed as a judge in 1990 over bribery charges. The court made it clear that a person’s character should not be judged based on the actions of his/her kin. “A person may not be penalised, and their character may not be judged for the act of another,” it stated clearly.In response to the state’s continued suspicion, the court ordered that Kumar’s character be verified within two weeks and directed the authorities to issue his appointment letter by January 15, 2025.The court clarified that the petitioner could be appointed against the current vacancies as, though selected against a 2017 vacancy, neither of those vacancies survives in the light of the provision of UP HJS Rules.
Source link
