In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, on its own, serve as grounds for questioning an individual’s character. The observation came as the court overturned the rejection of a candidate’s selection for a police constable position in Telangana.
The case involved a man whose provisional appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The decision followed a 2014 criminal complaint alleging sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage. The woman involved was known to the candidate, and the matter was amicably resolved through a Lok Adalat settlement in 2015. Importantly, the candidate had fully disclosed the case in his application.
A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra emphasised that there is no legal prohibition on consenting unmarried adults entering into relationships of their choice. “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,” the court stated.
The judges further noted that not all relationships lead to marriage, and the mere failure of a relationship to result in matrimony does not imply deception or cheating by one party. They highlighted the need for authorities to remain attuned to evolving social norms. The court observed that pre-marital relationships are becoming more common, and when such associations between adults extend over a significant period, there exists a presumption of mutual consent.
ALSO READ : Supreme Court Dismisses WFI Plea on Vinesh Phogat Trial Entry as Infructuous
Addressing the specifics, the bench pointed out that the candidate and the complainant were long-time neighbours. There was no evidence of force, threats, or coercion in securing the compromise. The court clarified that a settlement in a case involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage before a Lok Adalat does not equate to an admission of guilt. Employers should not draw negative conclusions solely from such resolutions unless there are clear indications that the agreement was imposed on the complainant.
The ruling also established broader guidelines for employers evaluating candidates with resolved criminal cases. An adverse assessment is warranted only when concrete material demonstrates that a crime occurred and links the candidate to it. In this instance, the court found substantial doubts regarding the commission of any offence, particularly as the complainant opted not to proceed and provided no testimony establishing deception.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the cancellation of the candidate’s selection, directing his appointment. The decision underscores a balanced approach in recruitment, prioritising facts over presumptions in personal matters.