WHEN SILENCE CANNOT BE CALLED SUPPRESSION: A CLOSER LOOK AT CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS AND EMPLOYMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) & Ors., 2026 INSC 829, decided on 11 August 2026, examined an important question concerning disclosure of criminal antecedents in employment verification forms. The Judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih. The Court considered whether an employee could be terminated for failing to disclose a criminal case when the employee maintained that he was himself unaware of its existence.
The Judgment is significant because it draws a careful distinction between actual suppression of information and an innocent failure to disclose something of which the candidate had no knowledge. At the same time, the Court made it clear that a mere assertion of ignorance would not be enough. The Employee must establish his lack of knowledge through credible material.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant, Shatrughn Yadav, was appointed as a Technician (Process) by Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. on 5 May 2021 on consolidated pay for an initial period of two years. At the time of joining, he submitted an Attestation Form declaring that no criminal case was pending against him.
Subsequently, during verification of his antecedents, the Authorities discovered that a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) had been registered against him in 2019 under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC. A Show-Cause Notice was consequently issued alleging that he had furnished false information.
Yadav maintained that he had no knowledge of the NCR. He had never been arrested, summoned or called to the police station. More importantly, he produced a Police Certificate issued in 2020 stating that there were no adverse entries against him. He later produced another document showing that, after investigation, his name had been removed from the array of accused as no evidence was found against him.
Despite his explanation, his services were terminated. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court declined to interfere, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether termination of the Appellant’s employment on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents was legally sustainable when the Appellant claimed that he had no knowledge of the NCR.
A preliminary objection was also raised regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, since an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was available. The Court therefore had to consider whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction in the circumstances.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court began by relying upon the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, particularly the proposition that disclosure requirements must be examined in the context of the facts of each case. The existence of a criminal antecedent does not, by itself, make termination inevitable. The Employer must consider the nature of the offence, the nature of the employment, the circumstances surrounding the disclosure and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings.
The Court then crystallised the applicable test into a two-pronged enquiry.
First, the employer must determine whether there was actually any suppression or false declaration. This requires an examination of what the candidate knew at the relevant time. Secondly, even if suppression is established, the employer must consider whether the nature of the suppression and the criminal antecedent is serious enough to justify termination. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, the employee’s role, the nature of the post, the duties attached to it and the outcome of the criminal proceedings must be considered.
In the present case, the First Test itself failed. The Court found that Yadav’s claim of ignorance was supported by documentary evidence. He had not been arrested, summoned or called to the police station. The Respondents’ argument that he must have known about the NCR because his parents were also named was considered mere conjecture in the absence of evidence showing that he had actually been informed.
The Court made a particularly important observation: knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to suppression. A person cannot be accused of concealing information which was never within his knowledge. However, the Court simultaneously cautioned that a bare plea of ignorance would not suffice; the candidate must substantiate such a claim with reliable material.
The Second Test also went against the Employer. The Authorities had proceeded largely on the assumption that the existence of the criminal antecedent automatically made the Appellant unsuitable. They had not meaningfully examined the nature of the offence, its impact upon his employment or the fact that his name was subsequently deleted after investigation.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, while restricting back wages to 50 per cent.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
The Judgment in Shatrughn Yadav reinforces an important principle of fairness in public and institutional employment: every incorrect answer is not necessarily a dishonest answer. Suppression involves conscious withholding of information and consciousness necessarily presupposes knowledge.
At the same time, the Judgment does not dilute the obligation of candidates to make truthful disclosures. Rather, it places responsibility on both sides. Candidates must provide complete and accurate information, while employers must exercise their power with objectivity and application of mind.
The decision ultimately moves the law away from an automatic and mechanical approach towards a more contextual one. Criminal antecedents may undoubtedly be relevant to suitability for employment, but the mere existence of an NCR or criminal case cannot substitute for a proper examination of the individual’s knowledge, conduct, the nature of the allegation and the requirements of the post. In that sense, the Judgment strikes a balance between maintaining integrity in recruitment and preventing disproportionate consequences for an employee who genuinely had no knowledge of the alleged antecedent.
SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate & Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Watch our latest video on Maintenance