GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual pre-marital relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as a blemish on a person's character, observing that authorities must be sensitive to evolving social norms while assessing candidates for public employment.
ALSO READ: Vehicles Spill Onto Footpath as Parking Crunch Persists Near AT Road Flyover in Guwahati
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan made the observation while setting aside the rejection of a candidate's appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.
The candidate's provisional selection had been cancelled due to a criminal case registered against him in 2014 following allegations by a woman known to him that he had engaged in a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage before eventually marrying another woman.
According to the complaint, the woman lodged a First Information Report (FIR) after the relationship ended. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the candidate and his parents on charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. However, no allegation of rape was found to be made out in the case.
Before the matter could proceed to trial, the parties reached a settlement before a Lok Adalat in 2015, leading to the compounding of the case. The candidate later disclosed the criminal case in his police recruitment application.
Despite the settlement and full disclosure, recruitment authorities declared him unsuitable for appointment, holding that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt and could not be considered a clean exoneration.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the recruitment board's reasoning, describing it as "perverse" and one that "defied logic". The Bench observed that the authorities had failed to properly appreciate the nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court noted that criminal proceedings based on allegations of a false promise of marriage in long-term relationships have frequently been quashed by courts, as such relationships are generally presumed to be based on valid consent between adults.
"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 Bench reportedly observed.
Emphasising changing social realities, the court said that not every relationship culminates in marriage and authorities must exercise sensitivity while evaluating such matters.
While acknowledging that employers are entitled to examine the criminal antecedents of candidates even after acquittal or closure of proceedings, the court held that any adverse decision must be based on objective material demonstrating both the commission of an offence and the candidate's involvement in it.
The Bench further observed that pre-marital relationships have become increasingly common in contemporary society and that where a relationship between two adults continues over a considerable period, there is a presumption that it is based on valid consent.
