New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be a ground to question an individual’s character, while granting relief to a Telangana police constable recruit whose appointment was denied over allegations linked to a failed relationship.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra observed that not every romantic relationship culminates in marriage, and the mere fact that a relationship ends without marriage cannot lead to the presumption that one party deceived the other.
It allowed Gajula Thirupathi’s appeal and revived a Telangana High Court order directing reconsideration of his appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
Thirupathi was provisionally selected for appointment as a police constable, but his candidature was later cancelled by the Recruitment Board owing to his involvement in a criminal case that arose from a complaint filed by his neighbour, who alleged that he had been in a relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage before eventually marrying another woman.
The dispute was subsequently settled, and the criminal proceedings were compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
The appellant had himself disclosed the pendency of the criminal case in his attestation form, and there was no allegation that he had concealed any material information. Despite this, the authorities deemed the allegations to involve moral turpitude and held him unsuitable for appointment to the police force.
The apex court observed that Thirupathi and the complainant were adults, neighbours, and had been in a relationship for nearly four years.
There was no allegation of rape and no material suggesting that the compromise before the Lok Adalat was obtained through threats, coercion or inducement, the bench observed.
The apex court said, “Such pre-marital 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.”
It further noted that not every relationship ends in marriage, and the mere failure of a relationship cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that one party cheated the other.
It was observed that whether a person was deceived into a relationship could ordinarily be established only through the testimony of the complainant, who in the present case had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had agreed to compound the offence.
Hence, the top court held the Screening Committee’s decision arbitrary, and restored the order of the High Court’s single judge and set aside the division bench judgment which had upheld the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature.
