Supreme Court Makes Key Observation On Consensual Relationships
In a significant judgment touching on personal liberty, consent and social attitudes, the Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual relationship between two unmarried adults cannot be used as a basis to question an individual’s character.
The ruling came while the court was examining a dispute involving a police recruitment candidate whose appointment was denied because of a criminal case linked to a past relationship. However, the observations made by the court extended far beyond the employment dispute and addressed broader questions surrounding personal relationships and public perception.
‘Consenting Adults Have The Right To Choose’
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra made it clear that the law does not prohibit two consenting unmarried adults from entering into a relationship of their choice.
“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 court observed.
Failed Relationship Does Not Mean Deception
The judges also rejected the notion that a failed relationship should automatically be viewed as evidence of deception or misconduct.
“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 bench said.
The court stressed that the end of a relationship cannot automatically lead to assumptions of criminal wrongdoing.
Telangana Recruitment Dispute Led To Landmark Verdict
The case before the court involved a Telangana police constable recruit whose selection was cancelled after authorities cited a criminal complaint arising from a past relationship with a neighbour.
Although the matter was resolved years earlier through a settlement process and no serious criminal charge was ultimately pursued, recruitment authorities treated the episode as evidence of moral misconduct.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that assessment and intervened in the matter.
Court Recognises Changing Social Realities
The bench noted that relationships between consenting adults are increasingly a part of contemporary society and that authorities should not infer criminality or immorality merely because a relationship eventually ends.
The judges observed that institutions must assess cases based on facts and evidence rather than outdated social assumptions.
Long-Term Relationships Presumed To Be Consensual
In another important observation, the court stated that where a relationship continues over a substantial period of time, there is generally a presumption that it was based on mutual consent.
The ruling noted that courts have repeatedly quashed criminal proceedings in cases where long-term consensual relationships were later portrayed as relationships induced solely by false promises.
Settlement Cannot Be Treated As Admission Of Guilt
The Supreme Court also clarified that a compromise before a Lok Adalat cannot automatically be interpreted as proof that a person committed wrongdoing.
According to the judges, unless there is material indicating coercion, intimidation or criminal conduct, authorities cannot assume guilt merely because a dispute ended through settlement.
Strong Message On Character And Personal Liberty
“Whether prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed. The public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant,” the court observed while criticising assumptions not backed by evidence.
Restoring relief to the recruitment candidate, the Supreme Court emphasised that decisions affecting employment and public service careers must be based on proven facts rather than perceptions about personal relationships.
