The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor character. The court made the observation while setting aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s selection in Telangana, NDTV reported.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra was hearing a case involving a candidate whose provisional selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The board had cited a criminal case registered against him in 2014 as the reason for rejecting his candidature.
The case was linked to allegations of a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. The matter was later settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015. The candidate had disclosed the case in his recruitment application.
Court rejects adverse character assessment
Setting aside the board’s decision, the Supreme Court said, “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 also observed that social realities have changed and not every relationship ends in marriage.
“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 said.
Selection cancellation set aside
The court noted that the complainant and the candidate were neighbours who had known each other for several years. It found no material on record suggesting force, threats or coercion. It also held that a settlement before a Lok Adalat cannot automatically be treated as an admission of guilt, as reported by NDTV.
“Whether the 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 said.
The Supreme Court further held that employers can form an adverse opinion only when there is material indicating that a crime was committed and evidence linking the candidate to the offence.
Since the complainant did not pursue the case and no evidence was presented to establish cheating, the court found no basis to conclude that the candidate lacked the character required for police service. It ultimately set aside the recruitment board’s decision and restored his selection.
FAQs:
1. What did the Supreme Court say about consensual relationships between unmarried adults?
A consensual relationship between unmarried adults cannot by itself be treated as a reflection of bad character.
2. Why did the Supreme Court restore the candidate’s selection?
The court found no evidence proving cheating or misconduct that would justify cancelling his recruitment.
