The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between unmarried adults cannot be used to infer negative character traits. This landmark decision, delivered by Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra, underscores that not all relationships lead to marriage, and the failure of a relationship to culminate in marriage does not imply deceit by one party.
The Court clarified that in India, there is no legislation prohibiting consenting unmarried adults from engaging in a relationship of their choice. Therefore, drawing adverse conclusions about someone’s character based solely on such a relationship is unwarranted. The judgment also emphasized that settling a case of alleged rape on the promise of marriage in a Lok Adalat does not constitute an admission of guilt, and employers should not infer wrongdoing if no evidence supports such a settlement was coerced.
Case Background
This ruling arose from the case of Gajula Thirupathi, who was provisionally selected as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable. His selection was annulled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board due to a past accusation of rape based on a promise of marriage, which they deemed indicative of moral turpitude. Thirupathi had already disclosed this case in his application, which had been resolved in a Lok Adalat in 2015 with no charges filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Initially, a single judge of the Telangana High Court overturned the board’s decision to cancel Thirupathi’s selection and ordered a reconsideration. Despite this, the board persisted in its decision to cancel, which was again set aside by the single judge, who directed Thirupathi’s appointment. However, the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court later reversed this decision, asserting that the case’s compounding did not equate to a clean acquittal, and the employer had the discretion to judge the suitability of candidates for a disciplined force.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court addressed the broader implications of pre-marital relationships. The Bench noted that contemporary societal norms must reflect in legal interpretations, acknowledging that pre-marital relationships have become commonplace. It further stated that if such a relationship spans a significant period, it suggests valid consent, which has previously led the Court to dismiss criminal proceedings initiated on grounds of false marriage promises.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that Thirupathi and the complainant were well-acquainted neighbors. The Bench stated that if there had been coercion or threats involved in reaching a settlement, the board would have been justified in questioning Thirupathi’s suitability for a disciplined role. However, no evidence of such coercion existed.
Judgment and Implications
The Court highlighted that the main element of the alleged offense was deception, which only the complainant could confirm. Since the complainant chose not to pursue the matter and agreed to a settlement, there was no basis for the board to assume deception had occurred. The Supreme Court also established that employers must have concrete evidence of a crime and its linkage to the accused before denying employment based on a concluded criminal case.
Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench’s decision and reinstated the single judge’s directive for Thirupathi’s appointment.
