Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Arunkanth Vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(MD)No.12980 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/08/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Arunkanth Vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (Madras High Court)

In a democratic society, the right to protest is a bedrock of civil liberties, allowing citizens to voice their dissent, concerns, and aspirations. It acts as a safeguard against potential abuses of power and serves as a crucial pillar of a vibrant democracy. Recently, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a landmark judgment that reiterates the significance of the right to protest as a fundamental right of every citizen of India. The case in question, titled Arunkanth vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, revolves around a petitioner who faced employment discrimination due to his involvement in a peaceful protest. In this article, we delve into the details of this judgment, analyze its implications, and explore the broader context of the right to protest in India.

Understanding the Case: Arunkanth vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board

The case of Arunkanth vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board centers on the petitioner, Mr. Arunkanth, who aspired to join the Tamil Nadu police department as a Grade-II Constable. His journey took an unexpected turn when it was discovered that he had participated in a peaceful protest against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) during his college days. This participation led to the filing of a criminal case against him, but it is important to emphasize that this case did not result in the filing of a charge sheet.

The critical moment in this case came when Crime No. 567 of 2017, related to the protest, was closed based on a High Court order dated 01.02.2022. The High Court explicitly stated that the protest was a legitimate expression of dissent and did not carry any criminal implications. Despite this clear directive, the petitioner’s application for the post of Grade-II Constable was rejected based on his involvement in the aforementioned criminal case.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031