Pre-marital physical relationships between consenting adults cannot be treated as evidence of questionable character, the Supreme Court has held, observing that such relationships are increasingly common in contemporary society and are not prohibited by any law.
The court said that while character verification is an important component of recruitment to disciplined forces, the exercise cannot be reduced to an assessment based on personal notions of morality. What is relevant is whether the conduct in question discloses criminality, dishonesty, violence or traits incompatible with public service, it added.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed that modern society increasingly witnesses consensual relationships between unmarried adults and, in the absence of any legal prohibition, authorities cannot presume that participation in such a relationship reflects adversely on a person’s integrity or character.
“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 recent judgment.
The judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a police constable candidate whose selection was cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a failed romantic relationship. Allowing the appeal of the candidate, the court restored an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing his appointment and set aside a contrary judgment of a division bench.
{{/usCountry}}The judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a police constable candidate whose selection was cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a failed romantic relationship. Allowing the appeal of the candidate, the court restored an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing his appointment and set aside a contrary judgment of a division bench.
{{/usCountry}}The case arose from the cancellation of the candidature of a man, who had 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 had promised to marry her, repeatedly postponed the marriage and eventually married another woman, following which she lodged a first information report (FIR).
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the candidate and his parents under penal provisions relating to cheating and criminal intimidation. Notably, no allegation of rape was found to have been made out.
The criminal case, however, never proceeded to trial. It was settled before a Lok Adalat and compounded on the basis of a compromise between the parties, with the order attaining finality.
Despite the settlement and the candidate’s full disclosure of the case, the police recruitment authorities declared him unsuitable for appointment. They reasoned that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt and that an acquittal through compromise could not be treated as a clean acquittal.
Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court termed the recruitment board’s reasoning “without any basis” and said the assumption that a compromise necessarily implied guilt was “completely perverse and defies logic”.
The bench emphasised that authorities assessing a candidate’s suitability must be sensitive to changing social realities. It noted that where two adults voluntarily remain in a relationship for several years, the mere fact that the relationship ultimately does not culminate in marriage cannot justify branding one party as a person of 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 further underlined that employers are undoubtedly entitled to examine criminal antecedents even where a candidate has been acquitted. However, such a decision must be based on objective material showing both that an offence was committed and that there exists credible material linking the candidate to the offence.
In the present case, the court found no such material. It noted that the alleged victim had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had instead consented to compounding the case. There was also no allegation from the authorities that the compromise had been obtained through coercion, threats or inducement.
The bench observed that in criminal jurisprudence, a person continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence unless guilt is established in accordance with law.
In a case where the alleged victim herself chose not to pursue the matter, there was no basis for the recruitment authorities to “read in between lines” and draw adverse conclusions regarding the appellant’s character.