SC held in Vashist Narayan Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Ors that An inadvertent mistake does not constitute wrong/misleading information or suppression of facts.
It is common knowledge that while filling up forms or giving information there could be an inadvertent mistake in mentioning dates or some other material information, more particularly when the requisite information is uploaded on computer by the applicant when he is not well versed with computer application. The common examples are filling forms for applying for Passport, Visa, Aadhaar Card, PAN or applying for a job. Similarly, there could be bonafide errors in filling Income Tax & GST returns, challans and various forms incidental to these returns. Would such an inadvertent bonafide mistake in filling up necessary details in the said forms prove detrimental & prejudicial for the applicant/assessee? Could a person be penalised for his inadvertent indeliberate mistake?
One such matter reached the Apex Court wherein the Court elaborately dealt with the captioned issue in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2024 INSC 2 recently decided on January 2, 2024.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Vashist Narayan Kumar hails from a small village named Dheodha in Bihar and he belongs to the downtrodden segment of the society. He aspired to become a Police Constable and had applied for the said post under the reserved category. He submitted his educational certificates/mark sheet as well as his caste certificate for document verification. In the form, he inadvertently filled his date of birth as 08.12.1997 whereas the school mark sheet showed his actual date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997. The final results showed him as having failed. The only reason was that in the application form uploaded online, the date of birth has been shown incorrect.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and explained that from his remote village he went to the Cyber café at Pakribarawan – a nearby town and filled the form with the assistance of a person running the Cyber cafe and uploaded it online. He submitted that, while filling up the form, by an inadvertent error, the date of birth had got recorded as “08.12.1997” instead of “18.12.1997”. He explained that it was not deliberate as he derived no benefit from it as either way he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and the age requirement. He prayed for the relief in the nature of a mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for selection.
The Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the Writ Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant moved to the Apex Court for redressal.
The question before the Apex Court was whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same.
The Apex Court heard the matter in details and observed thus:
“11. Admittedly, the appellant derived no advantage as even if either of the dates were taken, he was eligible; the error also had no bearing on the selection and the appellant himself being oblivious of the error produced the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth.”
The Court rejected the contention of the State that the information given by the Appellant was grave & misleading. The Court observed thus:
“14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul ……”
The Apex Court referred & followed a recent judgment of the same Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023:INSC:900; 2023 (13) Scale 730, wherein the Court declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception.
The Court also referred & approved the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6563 wherein the Delhi High Court had held thus:
“It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.”
The Court applied the legal maxim De Minimis Non Curat Lex and observed thus:
“It is undisputed that the exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. The legal maxim De Minimis Non Curat Lex is well recognized by the Courts and squarely covers the issue in hand.”
The Court granting relief to the appellant held thus:
“18…… We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later, on 11.06.2018, on the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.
19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide.
20. ……..there was no trick or device resorted to by the appellant. It is a trivial error which appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake. It will be unjust to penalise the appellant for the same.”
Conclusion: The Apex Court’s recent ruling establishes a significant legal precedent, emphasizing that trivial, inadvertent mistakes in forms or applications should not lead to penalization of applicants or assessees. Understanding the nuances of this decision is crucial for individuals navigating various application processes, providing reassurance against severe consequences for minor errors in an increasingly digital world.
Author Bio
