Introduction
The Supreme Court has held that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of poor moral character or used to deny public employment. The Court directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a police constable candidate whose selection had been cancelled due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship.
Legal Issue
The issue before the Court was whether a candidate’s involvement in a criminal case related to a consensual relationship that did not culminate in marriage could justify cancellation of his candidature for police service on the ground of moral turpitude and unsuitability.
Background
The appellant, Gajula Thirupathi, was provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) in Telangana. However, his candidature was cancelled after authorities discovered his involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The case arose from allegations made 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 dispute was subsequently settled, and the criminal proceedings were compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
Importantly, the candidate had disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form, and there was no allegation of suppression of facts. Despite this, the Recruitment Board concluded that he was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and declared him unsuitable for police service.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Recruitment Board’s decision and restored the order of the High Court’s Single Judge directing reconsideration of the candidate’s appointment.
The Court observed that while employers are entitled to assess a candidate’s suitability, such assessments cannot be arbitrary. Authorities must have sufficient material to establish both the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude and the candidate’s involvement in it.
Examining the facts, the Court noted that the parties were adults who had voluntarily remained in a relationship for nearly four years. There was no allegation of rape, coercion, or force. Further, the complainant had chosen not to pursue the allegations and agreed to settle the matter.
The Bench strongly rejected the Recruitment Board’s assumption that the compromise before the Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt, describing that conclusion as baseless and perverse.
The Court also made significant observations on evolving social realities, stating that consensual relationships between unmarried adults are common and legally permissible.
It held that a physical relationship between consenting unmarried adults cannot automatically create an adverse impression about a person’s character. The Court emphasized that there is no law prohibiting two consenting adults from entering into a relationship of their choice.
Further, the Court observed that not every romantic relationship culminates in marriage. The mere fact that a relationship ends without marriage does not establish cheating or moral wrongdoing.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Recruitment Board acted arbitrarily in treating the failed relationship as evidence of moral turpitude. The Court directed reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment and reaffirmed that consensual premarital relationships between adults cannot, by themselves, be used to question a candidate’s character or suitability for public employment.
Case Name
Gajula Thirupathi v. Telengana State Level Police Recruitment Board and Ors.
