The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has clarified that when an employer seeks police verification regarding the character and antecedents of a person sought to be appointed or already appointed, the police authority is limited to furnishing details of criminal antecedents under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The Court held that police cannot express any opinion on the candidate’s suitability for appointment; that determination lies exclusively with the employer. A verification report that goes beyond antecedents and declares a person “not suitable for appointment” is without authority and legally unsustainable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a verification report issued by the police to an employer is traceable to Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which contemplates verification of antecedents and not an opinion on the suitability of a person for employment. The report may contain details of criminal cases pending against an applicant, but the Legislature has not contemplated issuance of a report on whether the person is suitable for a particular post. The Bench also noted that Ext.P7 appeared to have been issued without application of mind, since the tabular column stated that no crime was registered against the petitioner, while the narrative portion still concluded that he was not suitable for the post.
The Bench further observed that it is not open to a police officer, even of the stature of the District Police Chief, to state whether a person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain details of criminal antecedents; suitability or otherwise, based on those antecedents, is the prerogative of the employer. The Bench relied on Manju B. v. District Police Chief [2022 KER:39103], where it had been held that the verifying authority is expected to enquire and report about character and antecedents and is not expected to express any opinion about suitability. The Bench also observed that column No.6 in the prescribed format for issuing the verification report, which asked whether the candidate was suitable for appointment, was legally unsustainable and that the Government would do well to delete it.
The Bench specifically found that the observation that the petitioner was “not suitable” merely because of involvement in a motor vehicle accident case under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, was without authority, arbitrary and perverse. The Bench remarked that it failed to comprehend how an applicant would become unsuitable for a post due to a motor vehicle accident, unless the employment related to driving vehicles.
Briefly, the petitioner, employed/training with HLL Lifecare Ltd., was involved in an accident on Aug 21, 2025 while allegedly riding a motorcycle, following which an FIR was registered at Peroorkada Police Station for offences under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. The rider of the other vehicle died, the investigation was completed, and a final report was filed before the Magistrate’s Court.
Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an attestation form to his employer for verification of character and antecedents, duly disclosing the pending criminal case. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a verification report stating that the petitioner was “not suitable for appointment”, and based on that adverse police report, the employer issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment.
