The Supreme Court has held that a consensual pre-marital relationship cannot, by itself, be viewed as a blemish on a person’s character, observing that authorities must be “sensitive” to changing social norms.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed that while character verification remains an integral aspect of recruitment to disciplined forces, pre-marital relationships are common in contemporary society and cannot be used as a pretext to cast aspersions on a person’s character.

“...authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital relationships. 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 persons in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice”, the Bench said.

The ruling came in a case concerning a police constable candidate whose selection was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board on account of his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship. Allowing his appeal, the apex court restored an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing his appointment and set aside a contrary judgment of a Division Bench.

The dispute arose from the cancellation of the candidature of a police constable aspirant who had disclosed, at the time of applying, that a criminal case had been registered against him by a woman with whom he was allegedly involved in a relationship for nearly four years. According to the complaint, the woman alleged that the appellant had promised to marry her but eventually married another woman.

She thereafter lodged an FIR, following which a chargesheet was filed against the appellant and his parents on charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. However, no allegation of rape was found to have been made out. Before the criminal case could proceed to trial, the matter was settled before a Lok Adalat and compounded on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

However, despite the settlement and the appellant’s full disclosure of the allegations, the police recruitment authorities declared him unsuitable for appointment. They reasoned that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt and could not be treated as a clean exoneration.

The apex court observed that the recruitment board’s reasoning was “perverse” and “defied logic”, and had failed to appreciate the nature of the allegations. It noted that courts have time and again quashed criminal proceedings based on allegations of a false promise of marriage in long-term relationships, since such relationships are generally presumed to be founded on valid consent.

“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...here, there is no material to conclude that the compromise was foisted upon the victim,” the Bench said.

The judgment further underlined that it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that unless a charge is proved in a court of law, there is a presumption of innocence. It further pointed out that when the alleged victim chose not to pursue the case and expressed her consent to compound it, there was no occasion for the recruitment board to “read between the lines” and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant.

While recognising that employers are entitled to scrutinise the criminal antecedents of a candidate even after an acquittal, the court held that any adverse decision must rest on objective material indicating both the commission of an offence and the candidate’s involvement in it.