The Supreme Court has ruled that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot be a ground to draw an adverse conclusion about someone’s character, as it quashed a Telangana government’s decision to deny a police job to a candidate citing “moral turpitude”.

“Authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital relationships. Such premarital 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,” a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan said in a judgment.

The bench said there was no law prohibiting two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice.

The top court passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi challenging a Telangana High Court judgment that had upheld the state’s decision to cancel his provisional appointment to the post of stipendiary cadet trainee police constable on the ground of “moral turpitude”.

According to the state, the candidate was unfit to join the uniformed police post as he had been in a physical relationship with a woman whom he did not marry. A criminal case was registered against Thirupathi and his parents, who had allegedly threatened the girl with consequences if she insisted on marrying him.

However, a compromise was reached between the two families and the matter was settled in a Lok Adalat. But the state government held that the settlement did not amount to a clean acquittal and quashed Thirupathi’s provisional appointment.

On the candidate’s appeal, a single-judge bench of the high court set aside his termination, but a division bench reversed that order. Aggrieved, Thirupathi filed the appeal in the top court.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Misra observed: “The statement that the compromise amounts to admission of guilt is without any basis. Further, the statement that the appellant compromised because he was guilty is completely perverse and defies logic.”