The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be used to draw an adverse inference about a person's character, while setting aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate's selection in Telangana.
A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by a candidate whose provisional selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable had been cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The board had cited a criminal case registered against him in 2014 as the basis for denying him appointment.
The case originated from allegations that the candidate had engaged in a physical relationship with a woman on the false promise of marriage. The matter, however, was settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015, and the candidate had disclosed the existence of the case in his application form during the recruitment process.
Delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that personal relationships between consenting adults should not automatically be viewed as evidence of poor moral character.
“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,” the court said.
The bench underscored that social realities have evolved and authorities must take a balanced and sensitive approach while evaluating such cases. It noted that not every relationship culminates in marriage and the failure of a relationship cannot, by itself, establish wrongdoing.
“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,” the judgment stated.
The court further clarified that a compromise in a case involving allegations of sexual relations on a promise of marriage does not amount to an admission of guilt. It held that employers cannot draw adverse conclusions merely because a criminal case ended in a settlement unless there is evidence indicating that the compromise was obtained through coercion or undue pressure.
The candidate’s selection had initially been cancelled on the ground that the allegations reflected moral turpitude. A single judge of the Telangana High Court had set aside the decision and directed the recruitment board to reconsider the matter. However, after the board again rejected his candidature, the single judge ordered his appointment. This order was subsequently overturned by a division bench of the High Court, prompting the candidate to approach the Supreme Court.
While examining the facts, the apex court observed that pre-marital relationships are increasingly common in contemporary society and that where a relationship between two adults continues over a significant period, there is a presumption of valid consent.
The bench noted that the candidate and the complainant were neighbours who had known each other for several years. It found no material on record suggesting the use of force, threats, or coercion either in the relationship or in the subsequent settlement.
The court also highlighted that the allegation essentially related to cheating, a charge that could only have been established through the testimony of the complainant herself.
“Whether 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,” the bench observed.
Since the complainant chose not to pursue the case and agreed to settle the dispute, the recruitment board had no valid basis to conclude that the candidate lacked the integrity or character necessary for police service, the court held.
Importantly, the Supreme Court laid down a broader principle for employers dealing with candidates who have previously faced criminal proceedings. It stated that an adverse opinion can be formed only when there is credible material indicating that a crime was committed and that the candidate was connected to the alleged offence.
Applying this standard, the court found serious doubts about whether the offence of cheating had occurred at all, especially since the complainant had not pursued the allegations and no evidence was presented to establish deception.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the cancellation of the candidate’s selection and held that the recruitment board’s decision could not be sustained on the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment is expected to have significant implications for public employment decisions involving candidates who have been part of criminal proceedings that ended without a finding of guilt.
Leave Your Comment