Acquittal by benefit of doubt not ‘honourable’: Supreme Court upholds rejection of police recruitment based on criminal antecedents
Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav
Citation: 2026 INSC 225
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 March 2026
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Held: The Supreme Court held that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt cannot be treated as an honourable acquittal, and such acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in the police force. It was further held that criminal antecedents, nature of acquittal, and involvement in offences involving moral turpitude are relevant considerations for assessing suitability in disciplined forces, and the employer or screening committee has wide discretion in this regard. Judicial review over such decisions is limited and cannot substitute the employer’s assessment unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse.
Summary: The respondent applied for the post of constable (driver) in the Madhya Pradesh police and disclosed his involvement in a criminal case in which he had been acquitted. The screening committee, upon character verification, rejected his candidature on the ground that he had been involved in serious offences of moral turpitude and that his acquittal was not honourable but based on benefit of doubt. The Single Judge upheld this decision, whereas the Division Bench of the High Court reversed it, directing reconsideration of the respondent’s candidature by treating the acquittal as honourable. The Supreme Court examined the distinction between honourable acquittal and acquittal by benefit of doubt, holding that the latter arises from lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be equated with a clean exoneration. It reiterated settled principles that suitability for police service requires impeccable character and that even acquitted candidates may be denied appointment depending on antecedents. The Court emphasised that screening committees are best placed to assess such suitability and their decisions should not be interfered with lightly by courts.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, restored the decision of the Single Judge and the screening committee rejecting the respondent’s candidature for police service, and disposed of all pending applications accordingly.