It is only when someone is actually convicted of an offence that you can conclusively say that they took part in a criminal activity during a protest – till then the presumption of innocence would apply.
For such a person to be denied a government job, or a passport or any of the other things the Bihar Police have indicated will be affected by the accusation of criminal involvement, cannot in any way be reasonable. Once they have actually been convicted by a court of law, the argument that this is fair thing to do becomes more feasible.
The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is an established concept in the US courts, but not really in the Indian context. Apart from the concurring opinion in the Xaviers case (itself not the majority opinion), it has not been specifically cited as a ground to strike down government policy in any other judgments.
This does not mean the argument is untenable, just that there is no guarantee that a court would feel bound by it.
Support for the…
