New Delhi: A physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot be treated as evidence of a person’s questionable character, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan, hearing the case of a candidate whose selection as police constable was cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case stemming from a failed romantic relationship, observed that such relationships are common in contemporary society and not prohibited by any law.
“Such pre-marital 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. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice,” a bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra observed, livelaw.in reported.
Allowing the appeal filed by the candidate, Gajula Thirupathi, the Supreme Court restored a Telangana High Court order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
Thirupathi was provisionally selected for the post of a police constable. But his candidature was cancelled after it came to light that he was earlier been involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. A woman, who was his neighbour, had alleged that he maintained a relationship with her for several years promising marriage only to marry another woman.
The two-judge bench emphasised that not every relationship culminates in marriage and authorities must be sensitive to changing social realities.
“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,” read the judgment.
Though the criminal case was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015, the top court said that a compromise of a rape-on-promise-of-marriage case before a Lok Adalat does not amount to an admission of guilt.
An adverse inference can’t be drawn just because a criminal case ended in a settlement, unless there is material to suggest that the compromise was forced upon the complainant.
Ruling that the recruitment board’s decision could not be sustained on the facts of the case, the Supreme Court set aside the cancellation of Thirupathi’s selection.
