Supreme Court Says Consensual Relationship Between Unmarried Adults Not A Measure Of Moral Character

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has observed that consensual physical relations between two unmarried adults cannot be ground of a person's bad character. A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Mishra made the observation while directing the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was rejected due to a criminal case.

What is the case?

The candidate was accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, a matter that was later settled out of court. However, the Telangana State Police Recruitment Board, in light of the allegation, blocked the candidate's recruitment, citing bad character. 

In this case, the Supreme Court bench stated, "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."

What did the candidate say?

The candidate appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and upheld a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing the board to reconsider his appointment as a police constable. The Telangana State Police Recruitment Board had cancelled his appointment on the grounds that a rape case on the promise of marriage had been filed against him in 2014.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court stated that the candidate had an affair with his neighbor. Following the allegations, a settlement was reached between the parties. The matter was settled in a Lok Adalat in 2015. No charges were filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the decision to deny the candidate recruitment on that basis was not justified.

"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. Had it been a case of use of force or extension of threat to force a compromise, the respondent would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force. However, here there is no material to conclude that the compromise was foisted upon the victim," 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 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," the bench said.