Can a consensual relationship between two unmarried adults be used to question a person’s character? Can a relationship that ends without marriage automatically be treated as deception?
In a judgment with implications far beyond a single recruitment dispute, the Supreme Court has answered both questions with a firm no.
At a time when pre-marital relationships continue to attract social stigma and often find their way into courtrooms, the country’s highest court has said that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot by itself become a basis for judging someone’s character. It also warned against the tendency to presume wrongdoing merely because a relationship eventually breaks down.
“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 said, as reported by Bar and Bench.
A MESSAGE BEYOND ONE CASE
The observations came while the court was hearing the case of Gajula Thirupathi, a police constable recruit from Telangana whose selection was cancelled because of a criminal case stemming from a relationship with a neighbour more than a decade ago.
But the judgment went much further than deciding whether one candidate deserved a government job.
The bench took on a question that increasingly sits at the intersection of law, society and personal liberty: should adults be penalised for consensual relationships that do not end in marriage?
The answer, the court indicated, is no.
“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,” the judgment said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
CHANGING TIMES, CHANGING REALITIES
The court recognised that social realities have evolved and authorities cannot ignore those changes while assessing people’s conduct.
According to the bench, pre-marital relationships are a reality of contemporary society and institutions must be sensitive to changing times rather than rely on rigid assumptions rooted in the past.
In one of the most significant parts of the ruling, the judges said that where two adults remain in a relationship for a considerable period, there is a presumption that the relationship was based on valid consent.
“Further, where such a relationship spans a considerable period, say a few years, time and again this Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by one party against the other on a complaint that the victim was lured into physical relationship by a false promise of marriage, because in such a case there would be a presumption that such relationship is based on a valid consent,” the bench said.
THE CASE THAT TRIGGERED THE OBSERVATIONS
Thirupathi had been provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable. While applying, he disclosed that a criminal case had been registered against him in 2014.
The case arose out of a relationship with a woman who was his neighbour. The matter was settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both sides reached a compromise, and no charge of rape under Section 376 IPC was ultimately pursued.
Yet the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board viewed the case as reflecting moral turpitude and cancelled his selection.
The dispute moved through multiple levels of the judiciary. A single judge of the Telangana High Court twice ruled in his favour, but a division bench later overturned those decisions, prompting Thirupathi to approach the Supreme Court.
CAN A SETTLEMENT BE TREATED AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT?
The Supreme Court also dealt with another crucial issue.
The bench said that a settlement before a Lok Adalat cannot automatically be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Nor can an employer presume misconduct merely because a criminal case ended in compromise.
The judges pointed out that if there had been evidence that the complainant was threatened, coerced or forced into a settlement, the authorities would have been justified in examining the candidate’s suitability. However, no such material existed in the present case.
The court was particularly critical of attempts to draw conclusions that were never established in legal proceedings.
“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 court ruled.
A BROADER DEBATE ON CONSENT AND CHARACTER
The significance of the judgment lies not only in the relief granted to one police recruit but also in its broader message.
For years, allegations arising from failed relationships have often carried social consequences that outlive court proceedings. Character, morality and suitability for employment have frequently been judged through the lens of personal relationships.
The Supreme Court’s ruling pushes back against that approach. It draws a distinction between consensual adult relationships and criminal conduct, while cautioning authorities against equating a failed romance with deception or moral wrongdoing.
Restoring Thirupathi’s appointment, the court said employers cannot form adverse opinions based on assumptions alone. They must have material showing that a crime was committed and evidence linking the person concerned to that crime.
In doing so, the judgment may come to be remembered not merely as a service law ruling, but as an important statement on consent, personal autonomy and the changing nature of relationships in modern India.
– Ends
