State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar; 2026 INSC 49 - Public Employment- Non Disclosure - Criminal Cases
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Public Employment - Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases- Proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. -While non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities. (Para 6) [In this case, the SC noted that, the disclaimer makes it clear that concealment of information would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government service- Held: Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit. ]
Legal Maxim - Juda lex sed lex - The law may be harsh, but the law is law. (Para 9)
Summary
The Supreme Court of India allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh’s appeal, overturning the High Court’s affirmation of a Single Judge order that had set aside the cancellation of Dinesh Kumar’s appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The Court held that repeated non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases in attestation and verification forms—despite explicit disclaimers—constituted deliberate concealment, making the candidate ineligible for government service, and that subsequent acquittal or later voluntary disclosure did not cure the initial falsity. Emphasizing fairness, integrity, and public trust in recruitment, the Court stated that sympathy cannot supplant law and concluded the appeal should be allowed.
Case Info
- Case name and neutral citation: State of U.P. & Another v. Dinesh Kumar; 2026 INSC 49.
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol; Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
- Judgment date: January 12, 2026 (New Delhi).
- Caselaws and citations: Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471; Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC 264.
- Statutes/laws referred: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 354D); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Section 12); Principles on disclosure in government employment; maxim ‘juda lex sed lex’.
