The Supreme Court has observed that consensual pre marital relationships between unmarried adults cannot be viewed as proof of poor character, noting that such relationships have become increasingly common in modern society and are not barred under any law.
The court said that while character verification remains an important part of recruitment in disciplined forces, the process cannot be based on personal moral standards. Instead, the focus should remain on whether a person’s conduct points to criminal behaviour, dishonesty, violence or traits unsuitable for public service.
A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan stated that authorities cannot assume that a consensual relationship between unmarried adults reflects negatively on an individual’s integrity or moral standing.
“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 bench said in its judgment.
The ruling came while hearing the case of a police constable candidate in Telangana whose appointment had been cancelled because of a criminal case linked to a failed romantic relationship. The Supreme Court allowed the candidate’s appeal, restored an earlier Telangana High Court single judge order directing his appointment, and overturned the division bench ruling against him.
The candidate had disclosed in his recruitment application that an FIR had been filed against him by a woman who claimed they had been in a relationship for nearly four years.
According to the complaint, the woman alleged that the man had promised marriage, repeatedly delayed it and later married someone else, leading her to file the FIR.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the candidate and his parents under sections related to cheating and criminal intimidation. However, the case did not include allegations of rape.
The matter never went to trial and was eventually settled before a Lok Adalat through a compromise between both parties.
Despite the settlement and the candidate’s disclosure of the case, recruitment authorities declared him unsuitable for appointment. They argued that the compromise effectively amounted to an admission of guilt and that such an acquittal could not be treated as a clean acquittal.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning and called the approach of the recruitment board “without any basis”. It further said the assumption that compromise automatically meant guilt was “completely perverse and defies logic”.
The bench stressed that authorities assessing suitability for public employment must remain conscious of evolving social realities. It observed that when two adults willingly remain in a relationship for years, the failure of that relationship to end in marriage cannot be used to brand either person as having questionable character.
“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 court observed.
The judgment also clarified that employers are free to examine criminal antecedents even in cases where a candidate has been acquitted. However, such decisions must rely on objective evidence showing that an offence was committed and that the candidate was credibly linked to it.
In this case, the court noted there was no such material. It pointed out that the complainant herself had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had agreed to settle the dispute. The authorities also failed to show that the compromise was secured through coercion, intimidation or inducement.
Reiterating the principles of criminal law, the bench observed that every individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty through due legal process.
The court added that when the complainant herself decided not to continue the case, the recruitment authorities had no justification to “read in between lines” and draw negative conclusions about the candidate’s character.
