Recently, the Supreme Court held that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character or a ground to deny public employment. The Court restored the candidature of a police constable aspirant whose selection had been cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a failed romantic relationship. The Court emphasised that “Not every relationship culminates in marriage” and cautioned authorities against drawing adverse conclusions merely because a consensual relationship did not ultimately result in marriage.
Brief facts:
The case arose from the cancellation of a candidate's selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable after the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board found that he had previously been implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stemmed from a failed relationship, wherein a woman claimed that she had been induced into the relationship on a promise of marriage. Although the criminal case was subsequently compounded before a Lok Adalat and the candidate had disclosed the case in his attestation form, the Recruitment Board treated the allegations as involving moral turpitude and cancelled his candidature. After a Single Judge directed reconsideration of his case and the Division Bench reversed that decision, the matter reached the Apex Court to determine whether the cancellation was legally justified.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that he had made a complete and truthful disclosure regarding the criminal case and had suppressed no material fact. The counsel submitted that the allegations stemmed from a consensual relationship between two adults who had known each other for several years. The Appellant contended that the criminal case never proceeded to trial and was compounded before the Lok Adalat without any finding of guilt. The Appellant further argued that there was no material to suggest that the compromise had been obtained through coercion, threats or inducement. Therefore, the authorities were unjustified in treating the compromise as an admission of guilt or as evidence of poor moral character. The Appellant maintained that the allegations, which remained untested in a court of law, could not form the basis for denying him public employment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Recruitment Board contended that the Appellant had been involved in offences involving moral turpitude and was therefore disqualified under the applicable recruitment rules. The counsel argued that appointment to the police force requires candidates of impeccable character and integrity, and that the employer is entitled to assess suitability even where a criminal case ends without conviction. The Respondents submitted that compounding of an offence before a Lok Adalat could not be equated with a clean acquittal and that the compromise did not erase the Appellant's criminal antecedents. The counsel argued that even in cases of acquittal or compromise, the employer retains the discretion to assess whether the candidate is fit to serve in a disciplined force like the police.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that while an employer is entitled to assess the suitability of a candidate even after acquittal or discharge, such a decision cannot be arbitrary. The Bench emphasised that before denying appointment on the ground of moral turpitude, there must be material to indicate both the commission of the offence and the candidate's involvement in it. The Court observed, “Therefore, when such a decision is subjected to judicial review, to ensure that the same is not held arbitrary, in our view, it must be demonstrated that, (a) there exists material on record to indicate that an offence involving moral turpitude was indeed committed; and (b) there exists material against the candidate even though he may have succeeded in earning an acquittal or a discharge.”
The Court noted that the appellant had made a full disclosure of the criminal case and that the allegations arose out of a relationship between two adults who had known each other for several years. The Bench found the Recruitment Board's conclusion that compromise before the Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt to be legally untenable. Rejecting this reasoning, the Court observed, “the statement that the compromise amounts to admission of guilt is without any basis. Further, the statement that the appellant compromised because he was guilty is completely perverse and defies logic.”
The Bench further observed that authorities must remain sensitive to changing social realities while evaluating cases arising out of failed relationships. Referring to consensual relationships between adults, the Court held, “Such pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, 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.” The Court thus rejected the notion that participation in a consensual premarital relationship could, by itself, render a person unsuitable for public employment.
The Court further held that the mere failure of a relationship to culminate in marriage cannot automatically lead to an inference of cheating or moral unfitness. The Bench observed, “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 Court noted that the complainant herself had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had agreed to compound the offence, leaving no basis for the authorities to draw adverse conclusions regarding the appellant's character.
The Bench ultimately held that in the absence of any material apart from the compromised criminal case, the decision of the Screening Committee to deny appointment was arbitrary. Emphasising that the allegation of cheating remained unproven and that the complainant had withdrawn from the prosecution, the Court concluded, “there was no occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so when both parties were adult and neighbors, knowing each other for several years.”
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge directing reconsideration of the Appellant's appointment. The Court held that the decision of the Screening Committee to deny appointment was arbitrary because it was based on assumptions unsupported by evidence.
Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi Vs. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and Ors
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.8059 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Justice Manmohan
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Ankolekar Gurudatta
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. K. Radhakrishnan, AOR Devina Sehgal, Adv. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
