New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has held that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be a ground to draw an adverse inference about the character of a person seeking appointment to a disciplined force.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan set aside the decision of the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board cancelling the provisional selection of a candidate for the post of Police Constable on the ground that his involvement in a criminal case reflected moral turpitude.
The appellant had been provisionally selected for appointment as a Police Constable, subject to verification of antecedents. In his attestation form, he disclosed that a criminal case had been registered against him under Sections 417, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on allegations that he had entered into a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage and subsequently married another woman. The case was later compounded before a Lok Adalat pursuant to a settlement between the parties.
Treating the case as one involving moral turpitude, the Recruitment Board issued a show-cause notice and eventually cancelled the appellant’s provisional selection. Although a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court twice directed reconsideration of the matter, the Board maintained its decision. A Division Bench subsequently upheld the cancellation, observing that compounding of the offence did not amount to a clean acquittal and that the employer was best placed to assess suitability for service in a disciplined force.
Before the Supreme Court, the Board argued that the appellant had been charge-sheeted for offences involving moral turpitude and that a settlement before a Lok Adalat could not be equated with an honourable acquittal. Reliance was placed on the decision in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Board’s observation that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt was wholly unsupported by the record. The Court noted that the allegation essentially concerned a false promise of marriage, a charge that could have been established only through the testimony of the complainant. Since she chose not to pursue the case and voluntarily entered into a settlement, no adverse inference regarding the appellant’s character could be drawn.
The Court further noted that the parties were neighbours who had been in a relationship for nearly four years, that there was no allegation of force or coercion, and that no offence of rape had been alleged. Significantly, there was nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had been pressured into the compromise. In these circumstances, the Court held that the relationship was more appropriately viewed as a consensual one.
Addressing the broader issue, the Court observed that authorities must remain sensitive to changing social realities. It reiterated that courts have, in several cases, quashed proceedings alleging a false promise of marriage where a long-standing consensual relationship existed between adults. The Court emphasised that there is no law prohibiting two consenting unmarried adults from entering into a relationship of their choice.
On the question of antecedent verification, the Court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence continues unless guilt is established before a court of law. While an employer may, in appropriate cases, consider the underlying conduct despite an acquittal, such a conclusion must be supported by independent material establishing both the commission of the offence and the candidate’s involvement. In the present case, no such material existed apart from the allegations contained in the charge sheet.
The Court distinguished Mehar Singh, observing that the case involved allegations of a violent public assault and a compromise with the complainant in respect of a serious offence. The factual circumstances of the present case, it held, were entirely different and did not justify a similar inference.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the Single Judge’s direction requiring the Board to reconsider the appellant’s case and, if his record was otherwise clean, send him for training with the next batch of constables.
Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8059 of 2026.
