The Supreme Court recently held that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of a person.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra also held that not every relationship culminates in marriage and an adverse inference that one party has cheated the other cannot be drawn merely because a relationship did not end in marriage.

"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 said.

Further, the Court made it clear that a compromise of a rape on promise of marriage case before a Lok Adalat does not amount to an admission of guilt and an employer cannot read an adverse inference into a settlement where there is no material on record to show the compromise was foisted upon the victim.

"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.

The Bench made the observations while setting aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate's provisional selection by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.

The case concerned Gajula Thirupathi, a candidate provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable, whose selection was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board on the ground that a rape on promise of marriage case registered against him in 2014 reflected moral turpitude. Thirupathi had himself disclosed the case in his application form.

The case arose from a relationship with a neighbour and was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties reached a settlement. No charge under Section 376 IPC was ever pressed.

When the board first cancelled his selection, a single-judge of the Telangana High Court set it aside and directed the board to reconsider the matter.

On reconsideration, the board cancelled the selection again. The single- judge once again set aside that cancellation and directed appointment. The Division Bench of the Telangana High Court reversed the single judge's order, holding that compounding of the offence did not amount to a clean acquittal and that the employer was the best judge of suitability for a disciplined force. Thirupathi then approached the Supreme Court.

On the question of pre-marital relationships, the Supreme Court made observations of significant breadth. The bench held that authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-marital relationships and that such relationships are common today.

The Court further said that where a relationship between two adults spans a considerable period, there arises a presumption of 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 held.

Applying this to the facts before it, the bench noted that Thirupathi and the complainant were neighbours who had known each other for several years.

The bench added that had it been a case of use of force or extension of threat to force a compromise from the victim, the board would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force. No such material, however, existed on record.

The Court noted that the offence alleged was one of cheating, the principal ingredient of which is deception, and that deception in such a case could only have been established through the testimony of the complainant herself.

"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.

It also laid down the standard an employer must meet before denying appointment on the basis of a concluded criminal case.

It held that to form an adverse opinion, the employer must demonstrate (a) evidence/material that the crime was committed and (b) some evidence/material linking the person concerned to the crime.

On the facts of this case specifically, the court noted that there was serious doubts about whether the offence of cheating was committed at all given that the victim alone could have proved its commission and had chosen not to pursue the matter.

Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court division bench's order and restored the single-judge's direction for Thirupathi's appointment.

[Read Judgment]