Consensual Premarital Physical Relationship Cannot By Itself Reflect Poor Character : Supreme Court Allows Police Appointment

The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship, holding that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).

The appellant had been provisionally selected for appointment as a police constable. However, his candidature was cancelled after the Recruitment Board found that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The case stemmed from allegations by a woman, who was his neighbour, that he had maintained a relationship with her for several years on a promise of marriage but later married another woman. The criminal case was eventually compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.

Notably, the appellant had disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form and there was no allegation of suppression of material facts. Nevertheless, the authorities concluded that he was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and was therefore unsuitable for appointment in the police force.

The Supreme Court observed that while employers are entitled to assess the suitability of candidates even after acquittal, such decisions cannot be arbitrary. The Court held that there must be material to show both that an offence involving moral turpitude was committed and that the candidate was involved in it, notwithstanding the acquittal or discharge.

Examining the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant and the complainant were adults, neighbours, and had been in a relationship for nearly four years. It further observed that there was no allegation of rape and no material suggesting that the compromise before the Lok Adalat was obtained through threats, coercion or inducement.

Criticising the stand taken by the Recruitment Board, the Court held that its assumption that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt was "without any basis" and "completely perverse". The Bench said:

The Court also made significant observations on changing social realities and premarital relationships. It said that authorities must be sensitive to contemporary social circumstances and cannot draw adverse conclusions merely because a relationship between consenting adults did not culminate in marriage.

"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 person in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice."

The Bench further noted that not every relationship ends in marriage and the mere failure of a relationship cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that one party cheated the other. It observed that whether a person was deceived into a relationship could ordinarily be established only through the testimony of the complainant, who in the present case had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had agreed to compound the offence.

"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.

Drawing a distinction from earlier decisions where candidates were denied entry into disciplined forces despite acquittals based on compromise, the Court observed that those cases involved allegations of violence and public disorder. In contrast, the present case involved a private relationship between two adults where the very commission of the alleged offence of cheating remained doubtful once the complainant withdrew her allegations.

Holding that the Screening Committee's decision was arbitrary, the Supreme Court restored the order of the High Court's single judge and set aside the Division Bench judgment which had upheld the cancellation of the appellant's candidature. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 606

Click here to read the judgment