The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of poor character or moral misconduct, while directing the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was cancelled over a criminal case stemming from a failed romantic relationship.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra allowed the candidate's appeal and restored a Telangana High Court single judge's order directing reconsideration of his appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable.

The recruitment board had cancelled the candidate's appointment, citing a 2014 criminal case in which he was accused of rape on the promise of marriage. The board argued that the case reflected moral turpitude and rendered him unsuitable for service in the police force.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, observing that a consensual relationship between adults cannot automatically be viewed as a blemish on a person's character.

"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 said.

The case originated from a relationship between the appellant and his neighbour, with whom he was involved for nearly four years. The matter was settled before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties reached a compromise, and no charge under Section 376 of the IPC was ultimately pressed.

The court noted that not every romantic relationship necessarily ends in marriage and cautioned against assuming wrongdoing solely because a relationship breaks down.

"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.

"Had it been a case of use of force or extension of threat to force a compromise, the respondent would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force. However, here there is no material to conclude that the compromise was foisted upon the victim," the bench said.

Emphasising the principle of presumption of innocence, the apex court observed that criminal allegations alone cannot justify adverse conclusions when they have not been proven in a court of law.

"In the instant case, the offence alleged was one of cheating. One of the ingredients of the offence of cheating is false representation/deception. 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. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant," the bench said.

Holding that the recruitment authorities had wrongly inferred moral turpitude from the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court directed that the candidate's appointment be processed in accordance with law.