New Delhi (India) June 10: The Supreme Court held that a sexual relation between two unmarried consents cannot be a reason to form an adverse impression about anyone's character and it does not have the quality of criminal act unless there is further element which made the act punishable in law.

"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 said.

Police Recruit Selection Cancelled Over Case

A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra was hearing the plea of candidate who was found to have a criminal case registered against him in 2014 which resulted in the cancellation of his provisional selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. 

The candidate faced the charge under IPC sections of offences related to sex on the false promise of marriage in which the complainant was a woman known to the candidate and was later settled before a Lok Adalat. The case was disclosed by him in his application form itself. 

Rejection Based on Moral Grounds

The court said that just because one relationship did not mature to matrimony did not mean that authorities could form a cynical attitude and not be sensitive to changing social ethos, especially of young individuals. The selection of candidate was initially cancelled on the ground of moral turpitude in which the case registered against him was relevant to form such a conclusion. 

Later on, it was set aside by a single judge of the Telangana High Court who directed the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter but the selection was again cancelled and the single judge again directed to appoint the candidate and was reversed by a division bench and was thus compelled to approach the apex court. 

No Evidence of Force Found: Supreme Court 

The top court had noted that relationships of a physical nature are no longer uncommon among young adults, and that when two adult individuals are involved in a relationship for a prolonged period, a legitimate assumption that the same was consensual must arise. 

The top court found that both the complainant and the candidate were neighbors and had acquainted with each other since a good period of time, and found that there was no material on record to suggest any use of coercion or force to obtain the compromise.