Premarital Relationships Common Today, Authorities Must Be Sensitive to Social Realities: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection on a person's character, and there is no law prohibiting consenting unmarried adults from being in a relationship of their choice. Court further said authorities must be sensitive to changing social realities, noting that premarital relationships are common today.

It said that where such relationships continue for several years, courts have repeatedly quashed criminal proceedings based on allegations of a false promise of marriage, as such long-term relationships ordinarily indicate valid consent.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi against a Telangana High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of his provisional appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable on the ground that he was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude.

Why Was the Appellant's Police Appointment Rejected?

The appellant had faced a criminal case lodged by a 22-year-old woman who alleged that he had maintained a physical relationship with her for four years on the promise of marriage but later married another woman. However, the case was subsequently compounded before a Lok Adalat.

The high court had held that the appellant was admittedly involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and that compounding of the offence did not amount to a clean acquittal. It further observed that an employer is the best judge of a candidate's suitability and that courts should ordinarily not interfere when a disciplined force considers a person unsuitable for appointment.

What Did the Supreme Court Say About Long-Term Consensual Relationships?

Examining the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant and the complainant were neighbours and had been in a relationship for about four years.

"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 Bench observed.

Court added that the authorities may have been justified in assessing the appellant's suitability differently if there had been allegations of force or threats being used to secure a compromise. However, there was no material on record to suggest that the compromise had been forced upon the complainant.

Can Compounding a Case Be Treated as an Admission of Guilt?

Court held that while the authorities were factually correct in stating that the case did not end in a clean acquittal, that by itself was of little consequence.

It strongly disagreed with the authorities' conclusion that the compromise amounted to an admission of guilt. "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. While making such statements the respondent lost sight of the nature of the offence alleged," the Bench said.

Court also questioned how the accused could be faulted for not contesting the case on merits when the complainant herself was unwilling to pursue the allegations.

"Whether prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed. The public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant," the Bench observed.

Court held that once the complainant herself withdrew the allegations and agreed to compound the offence, there was no basis to doubt the character of the appellant, particularly when both parties were adults, neighbours, and had known each other for several years.

Holding that the Screening Committee's decision to deny appointment was arbitrary, the Bench said the single judge of the high court had rightly interfered with it.

Court accordingly set aside the judgment of the division bench and restored the order passed by the single judge.

Case Title: Gajula Thirupathi Vs The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board And Others

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan

Date of Judgment: May 21, 2026