Introduction:
In an important judgment concerning the limits of police authority in employment verification processes, the Kerala High Court has held that police officers conducting antecedent verification under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, cannot decide whether an individual is suitable or unsuitable for employment. The Court clarified that the role of the police is confined to furnishing factual information regarding the criminal antecedents of an applicant, while the ultimate decision regarding suitability for appointment rests exclusively with the employer.
The decision was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Others, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325. The case arose from a writ petition filed by an employee of HLL Lifecare Ltd., who challenged a verification report issued by the District Police Chief acting as the Verifying Authority. The report not only referred to a criminal case involving the petitioner but also recorded that he was “not suitable” for employment.
The consequences of this remark were immediate and serious. Following the issuance of the verification report, the petitioner’s employer initiated proceedings that could ultimately result in termination of his employment. Aggrieved by what he perceived as an arbitrary and unauthorized exercise of power by the police authorities, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention.
The factual background of the case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident involving the petitioner. According to the materials placed before the Court, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle when a collision occurred with another vehicle. The rider of the other vehicle unfortunately succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. Following the incident, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 281, 125(a), and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to rash driving and acts endangering life or personal safety.
The investigation into the accident had already been completed, and a final report had been filed before the competent court. Simultaneously, the legal representatives of the deceased had initiated proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation arising out of the accident.
As part of his employment obligations, the petitioner disclosed details of the criminal case to the verifying authority in accordance with directions issued by his employer. Subsequently, the District Police Chief issued the impugned verification report. While mentioning the existence of the criminal case, the report went a step further and expressly certified that the petitioner was not suitable for employment.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the police, while exercising powers under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, possess authority to render an opinion on the suitability of a person for employment. The case raised broader questions concerning administrative fairness, statutory interpretation, separation of institutional functions, and the rights of employees facing adverse consequences based upon police verification reports.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner challenged the verification report primarily on the ground that the police authorities had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon them under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act. It was argued that the statutory scheme merely empowers the police to verify and report antecedents, including criminal history if any, and does not authorize them to make evaluative judgments regarding an individual’s suitability for employment.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned report effectively prejudged his eligibility for service without any legal authority. According to him, the determination of suitability is a matter that falls within the exclusive domain of the employer, who is required to assess various factors such as the nature of the employment, the relevance of the alleged misconduct, the circumstances surrounding the criminal case, and the overall character and qualifications of the employee.
It was further argued that the criminal case referred to in the report arose out of a motor vehicle accident and did not involve any offence reflecting moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, or conduct directly affecting the nature of his employment. The petitioner contended that the mere existence of a criminal case, particularly one arising from an accident, could not automatically render him unsuitable for employment.
The petitioner also pointed out significant inconsistencies within the verification report itself. In one part of the report, the verifying authority had indicated that no criminal case was pending against him. Yet, elsewhere in the same report, reference was made to the criminal proceedings arising from the accident. This contradiction, according to the petitioner, demonstrated lack of proper application of mind and rendered the report arbitrary and unreliable.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the remark regarding non-suitability carried severe civil consequences. Once such a conclusion was recorded by a senior police authority, employers were likely to treat it as determinative, thereby undermining the petitioner’s right to fair consideration for employment. The petitioner therefore urged the Court to quash the offending portion of the report and protect him from adverse action based upon an unauthorized opinion.
On the other hand, the State defended the issuance of the verification report. The respondents relied upon Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, which empowers police authorities to undertake verification of antecedents for purposes connected with employment and service-related requirements.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that employers often seek inputs from police authorities to ensure that persons engaged in various forms of employment do not pose risks to public safety or institutional integrity. The verification mechanism, according to the respondents, serves an important public function and assists employers in making informed decisions.
The State further argued that the verification process necessarily involves assessment of information gathered during inquiry. Since criminal antecedents form part of the material considered by the police, it was suggested that observations regarding suitability may be viewed as incidental to the verification exercise.
However, the respondents did not point to any specific statutory provision expressly empowering police authorities to make binding determinations regarding employability or suitability for appointment. The defence primarily rested upon the administrative practice reflected in the format of the verification report itself, which contained a specific column asking whether the individual was suitable for appointment.
The dispute therefore required the Court to determine the precise scope of authority vested in police officials under Section 53 and whether the inclusion of an opinion regarding suitability exceeded statutory limits.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the writ petition and delivered a significant ruling delineating the respective roles of police authorities and employers in the employment verification process.
The Court commenced its analysis by examining the statutory framework under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The provision deals with verification of antecedents and authorizes police authorities to furnish reports concerning the background of individuals in specified circumstances.
A close reading of the provision persuaded the Court that the legislative intent was confined to verification of antecedents alone. The Court observed that the subtitle of Section 53 itself indicates that the provision concerns antecedents and not suitability. Therefore, the statutory function assigned to the police is essentially fact-finding in nature rather than adjudicatory or evaluative.
Justice Thomas emphasized that when an employer seeks information from the police regarding an applicant or employee, the expectation is that the police will provide factual details concerning criminal antecedents, if any exist. The police are not expected to assume the role of the employer or substitute their judgment for that of the appointing authority.
The Court categorically observed that the determination of suitability for employment is a matter that belongs exclusively to the employer. Suitability assessments require consideration of multiple factors, including the nature of the post, the duties attached to the position, the relevance of any criminal allegations, the stage of proceedings, the gravity of the alleged conduct, and broader employment considerations.
These are matters that the employer alone is competent to evaluate. A police officer, irrespective of rank or authority, cannot usurp that function by expressing a conclusive opinion that a person is suitable or unsuitable for employment.
The Court therefore held:
“In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a police officer, even of the stature of the third respondent, to state whether that person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant.”
This observation constitutes the central principle emerging from the judgment. It recognizes a clear distinction between factual verification and decision-making authority. While police authorities may provide relevant information, they cannot determine the consequences that should flow from that information.
An important aspect of the judgment concerns the format prescribed for verification reports. The Court noted that the form used by the police contained a specific question in Column No. 6 asking whether the individual was suitable for appointment.
Upon examining the statutory scheme, the Court found no legal basis for inclusion of such a column. Since Section 53 authorizes verification of antecedents and not assessment of suitability, the existence of Column No. 6 was considered inconsistent with the parent statute.
The Court therefore declared that the column was legally unsustainable. Significantly, Justice Thomas went further and suggested that the Government should consider deleting the offending column from the prescribed format altogether. This observation reflects judicial concern that the very structure of the form encourages police authorities to venture beyond the limits of their statutory jurisdiction.
The Court also scrutinized the contents of the impugned report and found additional grounds for interference. It observed that the report lacked proper application of mind. In one section, the verifying authority had indicated that no criminal case was pending, while elsewhere the report referred to the criminal proceedings arising from the motor vehicle accident.
Such internal inconsistency, according to the Court, demonstrated careless preparation of the report and undermined its credibility. Administrative decisions affecting rights and interests must be based on accurate and coherent reasoning. A report containing contradictory findings cannot satisfy that standard.
The Court further examined the nature of the criminal case relied upon by the verifying authority. The allegations arose from a road accident in which a person had unfortunately lost his life. While the criminal proceedings were undoubtedly relevant as part of the petitioner’s antecedents, the Court found it difficult to understand how such an incident could automatically render him unsuitable for employment.
Justice Thomas made a pointed observation in this regard:
“It fails all comprehension even, as to how an applicant will become unsuitable for a post due to a motor vehicle accident, unless of course, the employment in question, relates to driving of vehicles.”
This remark highlights the necessity of contextual evaluation. Even where criminal proceedings exist, their relevance depends upon the nature of the employment concerned. A blanket declaration of unsuitability without examining the relationship between the alleged conduct and the job requirements is arbitrary and irrational.
The Court also recognized the serious consequences flowing from such remarks in verification reports. Once an applicant is labelled “unsuitable” by a police authority, employers may feel compelled to act upon that conclusion without independently assessing the relevant facts. This undermines both fairness and the statutory allocation of responsibilities.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the observation recorded in Column No. 6 was wholly without authority, arbitrary, perverse, and legally unsustainable. The remark was accordingly set aside.
The Court further clarified that the finding regarding non-suitability could not be used against the petitioner in any manner. This protection was necessary to ensure that the unlawful observation did not continue to prejudice his employment prospects or service conditions.
The judgment is significant because it reinforces fundamental principles of administrative law. Public authorities must act strictly within the boundaries of powers conferred by statute. They cannot assume functions that belong to another authority merely because administrative convenience appears to support such an approach.
Equally important is the Court’s reaffirmation of the employer’s autonomy in employment decisions. While criminal antecedents may be relevant considerations, the ultimate assessment of suitability must be undertaken by the employer based upon a holistic evaluation of all relevant circumstances.
By drawing a clear line between verification and adjudication, the Kerala High Court has ensured that police verification reports remain factual instruments rather than tools for determining employment rights. The decision therefore strengthens procedural fairness, prevents arbitrary administrative action, and preserves the integrity of employment decision-making processes.
In conclusion, the ruling serves as a landmark clarification of the limited role of police authorities in employment verification exercises. It affirms that police officers may report facts, but they cannot decide careers. That responsibility belongs to employers alone, who must independently assess whether any criminal antecedents genuinely affect a person’s suitability for a particular position.