The court said this while overturning the decision to cancel the selection of a police constable candidate in Telangana.
The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Mishra made this comment while hearing the case of a candidate. This candidate's provisional selection as 'Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable' was canceled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board because a criminal case was registered against him in 2014.
This case was related to allegations of having physical relations with a woman known to the candidate by making a false promise of marriage. Later in 2015, this case was settled in Lok Adalat. The candidate had given information about this matter in his application form.
The court said, "A consensual physical relationship between two adult and unmarried people cannot and should not be considered as a basis for forming a wrong opinion about the character of the person involved in that relationship. There is no law which prevents two adult and unmarried people from having a relationship of their choice."
The bench emphasized that every relationship does not convert into marriage and the authorities should be sensitive to the changing social conditions. "Every relationship does not convert into marriage. Therefore, merely because the relationship does not convert into marriage is no ground for believing that one party has cheated the other," the judgment said.
The court also made it clear that reaching a settlement before the Lok Adalat in a rape case by promising marriage does not mean that the accused has admitted his crime. The court held that an employer cannot draw a negative inference merely because a criminal case ended in a settlement unless there was evidence that the complainant was pressured into entering into a settlement.
Initially the candidate's selection was canceled on the grounds that the matter was related to 'moral turpitude'. A single judge of the Telangana High Court overturned this decision and directed to reconsider the case. After the re-selection was canceled by the board, the single judge ordered his reappointment. However, a division bench overturned the order, following which the candidate moved the Supreme Court.
On the issue of pre-marital relationships, the top court said such relationships have now become common and when the relationship between two adults lasts for a long period of time, it is considered to be consensual. The bench noted that the candidate and the complainant were neighbors and knew each other for many years. The court said that there was no evidence on record to show that force, threat or pressure was used to broker a settlement.
The Court further held that the charge primarily related to fraud, and the fraud could have been proven only if the complainant herself testified. The bench said, "Whether the complainant was deceived and brought into the relationship, only she could tell. The general public cannot tell whether the appellant had cheated her or not."
The Court held that since the complainant had decided not to pursue the matter further and agreed to the settlement, the Recruitment Board had no grounds to believe that the candidate lacked the character required for the police service.
The Supreme Court also laid down a broad principle for employers who evaluate candidates against whom criminal cases have ended. The Court said that negative opinion can be formed only when there is evidence to show that a crime has been committed and the candidate is connected to that alleged crime.
Applying this standard, the bench was left with serious doubts as to whether the offense of fraud had even been committed, as the complainant had not put forward allegations and no evidence had been produced to prove fraud.
Ultimately the court overturned the decision to cancel the candidate's selection and said that based on the facts of the case, the decision of the recruitment board cannot be justified.
