The Kerala High Court has held that police authorities cannot decide whether a person is fit for employment while conducting background verification. In a significant ruling, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas struck down a police verification report that described a job applicant as “not suitable for appointment,” observing that such an assessment falls exclusively within the employer’s domain.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Midhun M, was undergoing training with HLL Lifecare Limited, a Government of India enterprise. During the employment process, he submitted an attestation form for character and antecedent verification.
The verification was conducted after a criminal case arising from a 2025 road accident was reported against him. According to court records, the accident led to the registration of a case at Peroorkada Police Station, and a final report had already been filed before the jurisdictional court.
Subsequently, the District Police Chief issued a verification report on May 8, 2026. While referring to the pending criminal case, the report concluded that the petitioner was “not suitable for appointment.”
Based on that report, HLL Lifecare issued a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of his appointment, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Examining Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the court noted that the law authorizes police authorities to verify and report a person's antecedents. However, it does not empower them to assess whether a candidate is suitable for employment.
“The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant,” the bench observed.
. It further clarified that determining whether a pending criminal case affects eligibility for a particular post is a matter for the employer, not the police.
Justice Thomas pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the verification report. One portion indicated that no criminal case was pending against the petitioner, while another referred to the criminal case and concluded that he was unfit for employment.
The court remarked, “The suitability of an applicant to a post cannot be decided by the police.”
Referring to an earlier Kerala High Court decision in Manju B. v. District Police Chief, the court reiterated that police authorities are expected to provide factual inputs regarding character and antecedents and not opinions on employability.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the observation describing the petitioner as “not suitable for appointment” in the verification report.
The court held that the remark was “without authority, arbitrary and perverse” and directed that it cannot be used against the petitioner. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that the government may consider removing the “suitability” column from the existing police verification format.
The writ petition was allowed to that extent.
Case Details:
Case Title: Midhun M v. HLL Lifecare Limited & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 17992 of 2026
Judge: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decision Date: May 26, 2026
