Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice K V Vishwanathan observed that if a person does not furnish information that is not required, it would not be termed as suppression of material facts.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana.

Background

• After undergoing the necessary procedure, the respondent was placed in the merit list of the constables in the West Bengal Police Force.
• Later, the respondent was supplied with the ‘Police Verification Roll’ and was asked to fill-up the same.
  • He deposited the same with the appointing authority within the time prescribed for the submission.
• As per the police verification report sent by the local Police Station, it was alleged that the respondent was implicated in a criminal case.
• Upon scrutinizing the said verification form, the authority formed an opinion that the respondent had suppressed material information regarding his involvement in a pending criminal case.
• The aforementioned finding led to denial of appointment of the respondent by the appellant.
• The Calcutta High Court opined that the pending criminal case was subject to final outcome hence the presumption of innocence of respondent still remains.
  • The HC ordered the appointment of respondent against which this appeal was filed before the SC.

Court’s Observation

• The SC observed that in the facts of the present case, the information sought from the respondent in the verification form was vague.
  • Hence the HC has rightly recorded the finding that it is not a case of suppression of material information.
• The SC further ordered the appointment of the respondent.

Material Facts

• Fact is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) as,
  • Any thing, state of things, or relation of things capable of being perceived.
  • Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
• Material facts are those facts which are cardinally connected with issue and have capacity to escort the decision of the court upon that case.
  • In other words, these facts aid the court of law in interpreting the other relevant facts and lead to evaluation of the subject matter.
• Suppression of such facts is impermissible in law as it results in concealment of necessary information.
  • The law promulgates that one must come to court with clean hands and candid facts.

Major Case Laws

• Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. and Others v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005):
  • SC held that since specific requirement to mention about the pending criminal case was not sought in the verification roll, the respondent cannot be held at fault for suppression of material information.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others (2016):
  • SC held that, for determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
  • Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.
  • If information not asked for but is relevant comes to the knowledge of the employer, the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
    • However, in such cases action cannot be taken on the basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked.