The appellant's candidature for appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable will now be reconsidered in terms of the Single Judge's directions. (AI image)The Supreme Court has held that a consensual premarital relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor moral character for denying appointment to a disciplined force. The Court observed that although an employer may assess the suitability of a candidate with criminal antecedents, such assessment must rest on objective material and not on assumptions merely because the criminal case ended in a compromise.BackgroundThe Supreme Court has directed the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to reconsider the appointment of a candidate whose selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) was cancelled on account of his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a failed relationship.A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and restored the order passed by a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court, holding that the Recruitment Board had acted on assumptions unsupported by the record while declaring the appellant unsuitable for appointment.The appellant had been provisionally selected as a police constable, subject to verification of his antecedents. In the attestation form, he disclosed that he had earlier been implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was lodged by a woman alleging that the appellant had maintained a relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later married another woman. During the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute was settled before a Lok Adalat and the criminal case was compounded.Despite the disclosure, the Recruitment Board cancelled the appellant's provisional selection, observing that he had been involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. According to the Board, the compromise before the Lok Adalat did not erase his criminal antecedents and, if he had been innocent, he would not have compromised the case. The appellant challenged the cancellation before the Telangana High Court.Proceedings Before The High CourtThe High Court initially set aside the cancellation and directed the authorities to reconsider the appellant's candidature in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.After reconsideration, however, the Recruitment Board once again cancelled his candidature. It relied upon the applicable recruitment rules, which disqualify persons involved in offences involving moral turpitude, and the decision in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh to conclude that the appellant lacked the character and integrity expected of a police constable.The appellant again approached the High Court. This time, the Single Judge held that the surrounding circumstances also required consideration. Noting that the appellant and the complainant were adults belonging to the same village and that the appellant otherwise had a clean record, the Court observed that the possibility of a consensual relationship could not be ruled out. It accordingly directed the authorities to reconsider his appointment if no other adverse material existed against him.The Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that the employer was the best judge of a candidate's suitability for appointment to a disciplined force and that the writ court ought not to interfere with such an assessment. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.Supreme Court's AnalysisBefore examining the facts of the case, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that an employer is not bound to appoint every candidate who has been acquitted in a criminal case. Even where there is a truthful disclosure, the employer may independently examine the antecedents of the candidate and determine whether he is suitable for appointment.The Court, however, clarified that such discretion is not absolute.It held that where the employer's decision is challenged, there must be material showing not only that an offence involving moral turpitude was committed, but also that there is material connecting the candidate with the commission of that offence despite the acquittal or discharge. If the acquittal is based on technical reasons, benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses, the employer may legitimately examine the surrounding circumstances before taking a decision. However, such a decision cannot rest on conjectures or assumptions.Referring to its decision in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench reiterated that the validity of such decisions depends upon a holistic assessment of several factors, including the nature of the post, the criminal allegations, the manner in which the criminal proceedings concluded, the character verification report, the candidate's overall antecedents and the reasons recorded by the employer while rejecting the candidature. According to the Court, these considerations ensure that administrative decisions affecting public employment remain fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary.The Bench then examined the undisputed facts of the present case. It noted that:the appellant had made a full and truthful disclosure regarding the criminal case; the complainant and the appellant were neighbours who had remained in a relationship for nearly four years; the criminal case never proceeded to trial; the dispute was settled before a Lok Adalat; and there was no allegation that the compromise had been obtained through threats, coercion or inducement. The Court also noted that apart from the said criminal case, there was no other adverse material against the appellant.The Court found that the Recruitment Board's conclusion that the compromise before the Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt was wholly unsustainable. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the authorities, the Bench noted that the Board had proceeded on two assumptions: first, that the appellant had not earned a "clean acquittal", and secondly, that if he had been innocent, he would not have compromised the criminal case.While observing that the first statement was factually correct since the case did not end in a full-fledged trial, the Court held that the second conclusion had no legal or factual basis."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," the Bench observed.Court On Failed Relationships And False Promise To Marry CasesExamining the nature of the allegations, the Court noted that the criminal case arose from allegations of cheating on the basis of a promise to marry. It observed that whether a person was deceived into entering a relationship can ordinarily be established only through the testimony of the complainant.The Court pointed out that the complainant herself chose not to pursue the prosecution and instead agreed to compound the offence before the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, there was no justification for the authorities to presume that the appellant had committed the offence merely because the case had ended in a compromise.Making significant observations on changing social realities, the Bench said authorities must be sensitive while assessing cases arising out of failed relationships."Such pre-marital 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. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice," the Court observed.The Bench further observed that not every relationship culminates in marriage and the mere fact that a relationship ended without marriage cannot automatically lead to an inference that one party cheated the other."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 states.The Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, where criminal proceedings alleging a false promise to marry were quashed after the Court found that long-standing consensual relationships ordinarily raise a presumption of valid consent. The Bench observed that the same background facts were relevant while assessing the appellant's suitability for public employment.Employer Cannot Draw Adverse Inference Without Supporting MaterialThe Court further held that while an employer may consider antecedents even after an acquittal, there must be material to support the conclusion that the candidate was involved in the commission of the offence.Reiterating the presumption of innocence under criminal law, the Bench observed that unless the charge is proved before a court, a person continues to enjoy that presumption. It clarified that where an acquittal is recorded because of technical reasons, benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses, the employer may examine the surrounding circumstances before deciding suitability. However, such a conclusion must be supported by evidence.In the present case, the Court noted that the allegation was one of cheating. Since the complainant herself decided not to pursue the allegations and consented to compounding of the offence, there was no material available to conclude that she had in fact been deceived into the relationship."There was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant," the Court held.The Bench distinguished its earlier decision in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, heavily relied upon by the Recruitment Board. It noted that Mehar Singh involved allegations of assault, public violence and damage to public property, where the accused secured acquittal on the basis of a compromise. In contrast, the present case arose out of a private relationship between two consenting adults. Whether the offence of cheating had at all been committed remained doubtful once the complainant herself chose not to pursue the prosecution.According to the Court, these material differences made Mehar Singh inapplicable to the facts of the present case.Holding that the Recruitment Board's decision was arbitrary, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no material to justify the adverse opinion formed against the appellant's character merely because the criminal proceedings had ended in a compromise before the Lok Adalat.The Court restored the judgment of the Telangana High Court Single Judge, set aside the Division Bench's decision and allowed the appeal. As a result, the appellant's candidature for appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable will now be reconsidered in terms of the Single Judge's directions. All pending applications were also disposed of.CIVIL APPEAL No.8059 OF 2026GAJULA THIRUPATHI vs THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD AND OTHERSDate of Decision: 21.05.2026(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)