The Supreme Court has ruled that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about a person's character. The judgment came as the court set aside a Telangana High Court order that had upheld the cancellation of a police constable candidate's provisional selection.
Bench's Observations
A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra emphasized that authorities must be sensitive to changing social norms, noting that premarital relationships are common today. The court stated, "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 to have a relationship of their choice."
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Misra added that where a relationship between two adults spans a considerable period, there arises a presumption of valid consent. He further noted, "Not every relationship culminates in marriage. Therefore, merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage is no ground to believe that one party has cheated the other."
Background of the Case
The petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable. However, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board cancelled his selection on the ground that a case of rape on the promise of marriage was lodged against him in 2014, which amounted to moral turpitude. Interestingly, the petitioner himself had disclosed the case in his application form, which arose from his relationship with a neighbor. The case was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties agreed to settle it, and no charge for rape under Section 376 IPC was ever pressed.
Legal Proceedings
After the cancellation, the petitioner moved the Telangana High Court. A single-judge set aside the cancellation and directed the Board to reconsider its decision. Even after reconsideration, the Board did not change its decision, forcing the petitioner to approach the High Court again. The single-judge then set aside the cancellation and directed the petitioner's appointment. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed that order, stating that compounding of the offence before a Lok Adalat did not amount to a clean acquittal and that the Board was the best judge of suitability for a disciplined force.
Supreme Court's Verdict
Setting aside the Division Bench's order, the Supreme Court observed that the compromise was not foisted on the victim. "In criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled that unless the charge is proved in a court of law there shall be a presumption of innocence," the top court said in its May 21 verdict. The court further noted, "When the victim herself chose to withdraw the allegations and compound the offence, there was no occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so when both parties were adults and neighbors, knowing each other for several years."
Allowing the petitioner's appeal, the Supreme Court concluded, "We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Screening Committee to deny appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and was justifiably set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court." The court faulted the Division Bench for wrongly setting aside the single-judge's order.
This ruling reinforces the principle that consensual relationships between adults are a matter of personal choice and cannot be used to stigmatize individuals, especially in employment contexts.
