Consensual Premarital Physical Relationship Not Reflective Of Poor Character: Supreme Court

Published 8 June 2026 · india

Consensual Premarital Physical Relationship Not Reflective Of Poor Character: Supreme Court Published By, Last Updated: June 08, 2026, 12:51 IST The Supreme Court ordered a

Consensual Premarital Physical Relationship Not Reflective Of Poor Character: Supreme Court Published By, Last Updated: June 08, 2026, 12:51 IST The Supreme Court ordered a police recruit's appointment, saying a failed consensual relationship and subsequent compromise cannot alone establish moral turpitude. Supreme Court of India (Image used for representation) The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual premarital physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of poor moral character. The observation came while the court directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable had been cancelled over his involvement in a criminal case linked to a failed relationship. According to a report by Live Law, a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored an earlier order of a Telangana High Court single judge that had directed authorities to reconsider his appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC). The case concerned a criminal complaint registered against the appellant under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint had been filed by a woman who alleged that he had maintained a relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage before eventually marrying someone else.

The matter was later settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015, and the case was compounded. Despite this, the Recruitment Board cancelled the appellant’s candidature, taking the view that he had been involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and was therefore unsuitable for service in the police force. The Supreme Court noted that the candidate had disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form, and there was no allegation that he had concealed any information from the authorities. While recognising that employers are entitled to examine a candidate’s suitability even after acquittal or discharge, the court observed that such decisions must be based on objective material and cannot be arbitrary. The bench held that there must be evidence indicating both the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude and the candidate’s involvement in it. Examining the facts, the court pointed out that the appellant and the complainant were adults, lived in the same neighbourhood and had been in a relationship for nearly four years. It further observed that there was no allegation of rape and no indication that the settlement reached before the Lok Adalat had been secured through coercion, threats or inducement. The bench was critical of the Recruitment Board’s conclusion that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt.