The Supreme Court has held that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be used to question their character. The Court ordered the appointment of a Telangana police constable candidate whose selection was cancelled over a criminal case arising from a failed relationship.
The Supreme Court held that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, on its own, be used to question the character of either person in the relationship.
A Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra made this observation while directing the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable had been cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case connected to a failed romantic relationship.
The Bench said,
“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,”
Allowing the candidate’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld an order of the Telangana High Court’s single judge, which had directed reconsideration of his appointment as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable.
Earlier, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had cancelled the candidate’s appointment, claiming that a rape on promise of marriage case registered against him in 2014 showed moral turpitude.
The incident, according to the case record, stemmed from his relationship with a neighbour. The matter was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after the parties reached a settlement, and no charge under Section 376 IPC was pressed.
While referring to the facts, the Supreme Court noted that the candidate and the complainant were neighbours and had been in a relationship for about four years.
The Bench further reasoned that,
“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.”
It added that had the matter involved the use of force or threats compelling a compromise, the recruitment authority could have considered the candidate’s suitability for a disciplined force. However, the Court said there was no material to suggest that the settlement was forced upon the complainant.
The apex court also emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, unless an offence is proved in a court of law, the presumption of innocence applies.
It observed that in the present case, the alleged offence was cheating, and one essential ingredient is false representation or deception.
The Court noted that it was for the complainant alone to indicate whether she was deceived into the relationship.
The Court held that the public cannot determine whether deception occurred, and since the complainant chose to compound the case and did not pursue prosecution or lead evidence, the authorities had no basis to draw adverse inferences about the candidate’s character.
The Bench said,
“In the instant case, the offence alleged was one of cheating. One of the ingredients of the offence of cheating is false representation/deception. Whether prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed.“
The Bench added,
“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,”