Can a past relationship make someone unfit for police service? Supreme Court answers

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court held that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot by itself be treated as a reflection of poor character. The observation came while setting aside an order that cancelled a police constable candidate's provisional selection over allegations of moral turpitude which arose from a failed relationship.A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan made the observation in a case involving a Telangana police recruitment candidate whose provisional selection was cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 IPC.According to the allegations, the complainant and the appellant were neighbours and had been in a relationship for around four years. The FIR was lodged only after the appellant had married another woman. The woman accused him of cheating, but the criminal case was eventually compounded before a Lok Adalat."Importantly, the court clarified that the case did not involve rape charges, noting that 'there is no indictment under Section 376 IPC.'"What did the court rule?While examining whether the appellant could be denied appointment in a disciplined force on the grounds of "moral turpitude," the court made significant observations on consensual adult relationships."Such pre-marital relationships are common today," the court said."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," it added."There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice."The court also stressed that not every failed relationship amounts to cheating or criminal 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 judgment further criticised the recruitment authorities for treating the compromise as proof of guilt. The court said the authorities' reasoning was "without any basis" and was "completely perverse and defies logic."The court observed that there was serious doubt whether the offence of cheating had been committed at all, since only the victim's testimony in court could have established it — and she had chosen not to pursue the case"Notwithstanding the police report, which itself is based on statements recorded during investigation, there is a serious doubt whether the offence of cheating was committed at all. Deposition of the victim in court alone could have proved its commission, if at all. Therefore, when the victim herself chose to withdraw the allegations and compound the offence, there was no occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so when both parties were adult and neighbors, knowing each other for several years," the bench said.It ultimately held that the Screening Committee's decision to deny appointment was arbitrary.Allowing the appeal, the apex court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Judge's order, which had directed the respondents to send the appellant for training with the next batch of constables.