The Supreme Court has held that a consensual premarital physical relationship between two unmarried adults by itself cannot be treated as an act involving moral turpitude or be used to draw adverse conclusions regarding a person’s character, while emphasising that authorities must remain sensitive to changing social realities and contemporary societal norms.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan passed the ruling while allowing the appeal of a candidate whose provisional selection to the police force was cancelled by the Telangana Government on the ground that he had previously been involved in a criminal case arising out of a relationship with a woman with whom he had been in a consensual physical relationship.
The Court set aside the decision of the State Government and the judgment of the Telangana High Court, thereby clearing the way for the appellant’s appointment in the police force.
The dispute arose after a criminal case was registered against the appellant following the breakdown of a relationship between him and a woman with whom he had been in a consensual relationship. According to the record, the relationship did not culminate in marriage and the criminal proceedings were initiated after the appellant married another woman. Subsequently, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and the dispute was resolved before a Lok Adalat.
Despite the settlement, the State Government treated the appellant as disqualified for public employment on the ground that he had been involved in an offence allegedly involving moral turpitude. The Telangana High Court upheld the government’s decision, observing that the appellant had been implicated in an offence involving moral turpitude and that compounding of the offence through a settlement could not be equated with a clean acquittal.
The Supreme Court disagreed with both findings. The Bench observed that contemporary social realities could not be ignored while assessing a candidate’s suitability for public employment. It noted that premarital relationships between consenting adults have become increasingly common and that the mere existence of such a relationship cannot be regarded as reflecting adversely on a person’s moral character.
The Court held that there is no statutory prohibition against two consenting unmarried adults entering into a relationship of their choice. Consequently, a consensual physical relationship between unmarried adults cannot, without more, be treated as evidence of moral depravity, misconduct or lack of integrity warranting denial of public employment.
The Bench further observed that courts have repeatedly recognised that where a relationship continues over a considerable period, criminal proceedings alleging a false promise of marriage have often been quashed on the premise that the relationship was founded on valid and informed consent rather than deception.
Examining the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the prosecutrix had ultimately chosen not to pursue the criminal proceedings. She did not step into the witness box to depose against the appellant and had consented to the settlement of the dispute before the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, there was no evidentiary basis for the authorities to infer that the appellant had deceived or exploited her.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s conduct during the recruitment process. It observed that he had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case and had also informed the authorities that the dispute had subsequently been settled. The appellant had consistently maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the criminal case was lodged only after the relationship ended and he married another person.
The State Government argued that the police force is a disciplined service and that even the slightest doubt regarding a candidate’s character or antecedents could justify denial of appointment. However, the Supreme Court rejected this submission and held that such an approach could not be adopted in the absence of cogent material establishing misconduct or moral turpitude.
The Bench observed that whether the prosecutrix had been deceived into entering the relationship was a matter that only she could have disclosed through evidence. Since she chose not to pursue the allegations, did not adduce evidence and instead agreed to compound the matter, the authorities had no justification to speculate about the circumstances of the relationship or draw adverse inferences regarding the appellant’s character.
Holding that the denial of appointment was legally unsustainable, the Court quashed the State Government’s decision as well as the Telangana High Court’s judgment and directed that the appellant’s candidature be considered for appointment in accordance with law.
The judgment underscores that consensual premarital relationships between adults cannot automatically be categorised as conduct involving moral turpitude and that public authorities must assess antecedents on the basis of objective material rather than outdated social assumptions or moral perceptions.
The post Consensual premarital relationship cannot be a yardstick to assess character: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.