In a significant judgment addressing personal autonomy and employment rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be used to question an individual’s character. The court also held that the breakdown of such a relationship without marriage does not automatically amount to deception or wrongdoing.
The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB) had cancelled the provisional selection of a police constable candidate, Gajula Thirupathi, following scrutiny of his background during the recruitment process.
The case arose from a relationship between a police recruitment candidate, Thirupathi, and a woman who was his neighbour. A criminal complaint was lodged, but the matter was subsequently settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015 through a compromise reached by both parties. As a result, no rape charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was ultimately pursued.
What Supreme Court said
“Authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital relationships. Such premarital relationships are common today. Moreover, 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,” said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan in a judgment.
“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 bench said in a judgement.
“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. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant,” the court ruled.
MUST READ: ‘Bohot seh liya’: TMC MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar amid coup rumours
The Supreme Court bench observed that a settlement before a Lok Adalat cannot automatically be interpreted as an admission of guilt. The judges stated that employers cannot presume misconduct solely because a criminal case was resolved through a compromise between the parties.
The court noted that authorities would have been justified in examining the candidate’s suitability if there had been evidence that the complainant was threatened, coerced or compelled to enter into the settlement. However, no such material was available in the present case.
While examining the issue, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to distinguish between consensual adult relationships and criminal behaviour. The judgment cautioned against treating the failure of a personal relationship as evidence of deception or moral wrongdoing.
The court observed that allegations arising from failed relationships often continue to carry social consequences long after legal proceedings have concluded. It stressed that personal relationships should not become the sole basis for assessing character, morality or suitability for employment.
Restoring Thirupathi’s appointment, the Supreme Court held that adverse conclusions cannot be drawn on the basis of assumptions alone. The court stated that employers must possess material indicating that a crime was committed and evidence connecting the individual concerned to that offence before taking action affecting employment.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications beyond the recruitment dispute that prompted the case. By reaffirming the distinction between consensual relationships and criminal misconduct, the judgment underscores the principles of consent and personal autonomy while setting out limits on how employers assess an individual’s character and suitability for public service.
