The Supreme Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor character or moral unfitness for public employment, setting aside the cancellation of a Telangana police constable candidate's recruitment.

Delivering the verdict, a bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra held that authorities cannot draw adverse conclusions about a candidate's character merely because a relationship did not end in marriage or because a criminal case arising from such a relationship was later settled.

The case involved a candidate selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable in Telangana. His appointment was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board due to a criminal case registered against him. The complaint alleged that he had established a relationship with a woman on the promise of marriage. However, the dispute was resolved before a Lok Adalat in 2015, and the candidate had disclosed the case during the recruitment process.

Examining the matter, the Supreme Court observed that modern social realities cannot be ignored while assessing an individual's character. The bench noted that relationships between consenting adults do not always culminate in marriage and that the failure of a relationship cannot automatically be interpreted as cheating or exploitation.

The court stressed that there is no legal prohibition on two consenting unmarried adults entering into a relationship of their choice. Therefore, such a relationship, without additional incriminating material, cannot be used as a basis to conclude that a person lacks integrity or suitability for public service.

Addressing the impact of the criminal case, the bench clarified that a settlement before a Lok Adalat does not amount to an admission of guilt. It held that employers and recruiting authorities cannot presume wrongdoing solely because a case ended through compromise, unless there is evidence suggesting that the settlement was obtained through coercion or undue pressure on the complainant.

The judges also highlighted that allegations of deception in a promise-to-marry case can ordinarily be established only through the complainant's testimony. In the present case, the complainant chose not to pursue the allegations and agreed to the settlement, leaving no material on record to conclusively establish that the candidate had deceived her.

The court ultimately quashed the recruitment board's decision, restoring the candidate's selection and reinforcing the principle that consensual adult relationships and settled criminal disputes cannot, without supporting evidence, be used to stigmatise individuals seeking public employment.