The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment, asserting that premarital sexual relationships between consenting adults cannot be considered an act of moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that authorities must adapt to changing social norms and refrain from taking punitive actions based on such relationships.
Case Background
A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan intervened on behalf of an aspiring police officer from Telangana. His provisional selection was revoked after it was discovered that he had been in a physical relationship with a woman, who later filed a complaint against him. Although the matter was resolved through a compromise in a Lok Adalat, the Telangana government argued that the candidate was disqualified due to involvement in an offense involving moral turpitude. The Telangana High Court had also ruled against him, stating that the compromise did not amount to a clean acquittal.
Supreme Court's Observations
Rejecting the state's stance and the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court quashed the government's decision, paving the way for the candidate's recruitment. The Court made it clear that engaging in premarital sex cannot be a valid reason to bar someone from employment in the police force. It noted that the victim herself chose not to testify against the petitioner.
The bench remarked: "Authorities must be sensitive to changing times in the context of premarital relationships. Such relationships are common today. Moreover, a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice."
Legal Precedents and Consent
The Court highlighted that in relationships spanning a considerable period, courts have repeatedly quashed criminal proceedings initiated by one party against the other on the ground of false promise of marriage. This is because there is a presumption that such relationships are based on valid consent.
In the present case, the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the registration of a case against him and informed the authorities that it was amicably settled in Lok Adalat. He explained that he had a consensual relationship that did not lead to marriage, and a case was filed after he married another woman.
State's Argument Rejected
The state argued that the police force requires high moral standards and that any doubt about a candidate's character from past antecedents could justify denial of appointment. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating: "Whether the prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed. The public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read between the lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant."
The judgment underscores the importance of individual privacy and consent, setting a significant precedent for employment decisions based on personal relationships.
