A physical relationship before marriage between two consenting adults cannot by itself be a reason to question the character of an individual, the Supreme Court said on Monday, while quashing the cancellation of appointment of a constable candidate in the Telangana Police.
The case concerns Jajula Thirupathi whose nomination for the post of Trainee Police Officer (SCTPC) was canceled by the Recruitment Board due to his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a complaint filed by his neighbour, who alleged that he was in a relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage before he eventually married another woman, news agency PTI reported.
Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra noted that all romantic relationships do not end in marriage, and the mere fact that a relationship ends without marriage cannot give rise to a presumption that one party has cheated the other.
Dispute and criminal case
The Thirupathi dispute was later settled and the criminal proceedings were aggravated before the Lok Adalat in 2015. In fact, he himself disclosed the continuance of the criminal case in his affidavit form. There was no allegation that he concealed any material information. Despite this, the authorities considered these allegations to involve moral turpitude, and deemed him unsuitable for appointment to the police force.
The high court observed that Thirupathi and the complainant were adults, neighbors and were in a relationship for nearly four years.
The bench observed that there was no allegation of rape and there was no material to indicate that the settlement before Lok Adalat was obtained through threats, coercion or inducement.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said: “Such premarital relationships are common today. Moreover, a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not in itself be a reason for forming a negative impression of the character of the person in that relationship. There is no law prohibiting two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice.”
She also pointed out that not every relationship ends in marriage, and just because a relationship fails cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that one party cheated on the other.
It was noted that whether someone had been cheated on in a relationship could usually only be proven through the testimony of the complainant, who in this case chose not to pursue the allegations and agreed to aggravate the crime.
Hence, the Supreme Court considered the decision of the screening committee to be arbitrary, and restored the order of the single judge of the Supreme Court and set aside the partial ruling that upheld the cancellation of the appellant’s nomination.
