The Supreme Court has held that a consensual physical relationship between unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be used to draw adverse conclusions about an individual’s character, while granting relief to a Telangana police constable recruit whose appointment was cancelled following allegations arising from a failed relationship.
A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra observed that not every romantic relationship culminates in marriage and that the mere fact a relationship ends without marriage does not automatically establish that one party deceived the other.
The court allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored an earlier order of the Telangana High Court directing authorities to reconsider his appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
Thirupathi had been provisionally selected for appointment to the police force. However, his candidature was subsequently cancelled by the Recruitment Board because of his involvement in a criminal case stemming from a complaint filed by a neighbour. The complainant had alleged that he maintained a relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage before eventually marrying another woman.
The dispute was later settled and the criminal proceedings were compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had disclosed the pending criminal case in his attestation form and that there was no allegation that he had concealed any material information. Despite this disclosure, authorities considered the allegations to involve moral turpitude and concluded that he was unsuitable for appointment to the police service.
Examining the facts of the case, the court observed that Thirupathi and the complainant were adults, lived in the same neighbourhood and had been in a relationship for nearly four years. The bench further noted that there was no allegation of rape and no material suggesting that the compromise reached before the Lok Adalat had been obtained through threats, coercion or inducement.
The court stated, “Such pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, a 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 from having a relationship of their choice.”
The bench further observed that not every relationship ends in marriage and that the failure of a relationship cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that one party cheated the other.
It also noted that questions relating to whether a person had been deceived into a relationship would ordinarily require the testimony of the complainant. In the present case, the complainant had chosen not to pursue the allegations further and had agreed to compound the offence.
Holding that the decision of the Screening Committee was arbitrary, the Supreme Court restored the order passed by the Telangana High Court’s single judge. It also set aside the judgment of the division bench, which had upheld the cancellation of Thirupathi’s candidature.
Leave a Reply