The Supreme Court held that premarital physical relations between consenting adults cannot be treated as evidence of questionable character and observed that such relations are becoming increasingly common in contemporary society and are not prohibited by any law.
The court said that although character verification is an important element of recruitment into disciplined forces, the practice cannot be reduced to an assessment based on subjective notions of morality. What is important, she added, is whether the conduct in question reveals criminality, dishonesty, violence or traits that are incompatible with public service.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed that modern society is increasingly witnessing consensual relationships between unmarried adults and, in the absence of any legal prohibition, the authorities cannot assume that engaging in such a relationship reflects adversely on the integrity or character of the person.
“A physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot and should not in itself be a reason for leaving a negative impression of the character of the person in that relationship. There is no law prohibiting two unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice,” the court said in its latest ruling.
The ruling came as the bench directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a constable candidate whose selection had been deselected due to his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a failed romantic relationship. After allowing the candidate’s appeal, the court restored an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing his appointment and set aside a dissenting ruling of a division bench.
The case arose out of the cancellation of the nomination of a man who successfully disclosed in his application a criminal case registered against him by a woman with whom he had allegedly been in a relationship for about four years.
According to the allegations, the woman claimed that the appellant promised to marry her, repeatedly postponed the marriage and eventually married another woman, following which she filed a First Information Report (FIR).
After the investigation, an indictment was filed against the candidate and his parents under penal provisions related to fraud and criminal intimidation. It is worth noting that no allegation of rape was found.
However, the criminal case never reached trial. It was settled before the Lok Adalat and was settled on the basis of compromise between the parties, with the matter coming to an end.
Despite the settlement and the candidate’s full disclosure of the case, the police recruitment authorities declared him ineligible for appointment. They believed that the settlement amounted to an admission of guilt and that acquittal through the settlement could not be treated as a clean exoneration.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach, calling the draft board’s reasoning “baseless” and saying the assumption that a settlement necessarily entails guilt was “completely perverse and defies logic.”
The authority stressed that the authorities assessing the suitability of the candidate must be sensitive to the changing social reality. She observed that when two adults voluntarily remain in a relationship for several years, the mere fact that the relationship does not ultimately end in marriage cannot justify labeling one party as a person of questionable character.
The court noted that “not every relationship ends in marriage. Therefore, the mere fact that the relationship did not culminate in marriage does not constitute a reason to believe that one party has deceived the other.”
The ruling further emphasized that employers undoubtedly have the right to check criminal history even if the candidate is acquitted. However, such a decision must be based on objective material proving the commission of a crime, and the existence of reliable material linking the candidate to the crime.
In this case, the court found no such material. She noted that the alleged victim chose not to pursue the allegations and instead agreed to complicate the case. There was also no allegation by the authorities that the settlement was reached through coercion, threats or inducement.
The court noted that in criminal jurisprudence, a person continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty in accordance with the law.
In a case where the alleged victim herself chose not to pursue the matter, there was no basis for the employment authorities to “read between the lines” and draw adverse inferences as to the appellant’s character.
