New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot be used to draw an adverse inference about a person’s character, observing that no law prohibits such relationships between consenting adults.

A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra made the observation while directing the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable had been cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case stemming from a failed romantic relationship.

In its judgment, the court 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 from having a relationship of their choice.”

The apex court allowed the candidate’s appeal and upheld an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing reconsideration of his appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable.

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had revoked his appointment citing a 2014 criminal case alleging rape on the promise of marriage, contending that it reflected moral turpitude and rendered him unsuitable for service in a disciplined force.

According to court records, the case arose from a romantic relationship between the appellant and his neighbour, which lasted for nearly four years. The matter was settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties reached a compromise, and no charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was ultimately pursued.

The Supreme Court noted that not every romantic relationship ends in marriage and that the failure of a relationship to culminate in marriage does not automatically imply deception by either party.

“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 bench observed.

The court further clarified that concerns about suitability for police service could have arisen had there been evidence of coercion, force, threats, or pressure exerted on the woman to secure a compromise. However, it found no material suggesting that the settlement had been forced upon the complainant.

“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 court said.

Reiterating a fundamental principle of criminal law, the Supreme Court emphasized that an individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

The judgment is expected to have significant implications for employment decisions involving candidates who were previously implicated in criminal cases arising out of consensual relationships but were neither convicted nor found guilty by a court.