In a key observation, the Supreme Court has 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.Merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage is no ground to believe that one party has cheated the other.
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.
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.
Follow us
