Consensual pre-marital relationship is no blot on character, says Supreme Court

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

The Supreme Court has held that a consensual pre-marital relationship cannot, by itself, be viewed as a blemish on a person’s character, observing that authorities must be “sensitive” to changing social norms.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed that while character verification remains an integral aspect of recruitment to disciplined forces, pre-marital relationships are common in contemporary society and cannot be used as a pretext to cast aspersions on a person’s character.

“...authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital 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 persons in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice”, the Bench said.

The ruling came in a case concerning a police constable candidate whose selection was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board on account of his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship. Allowing his appeal, the apex court restored an earlier order of a single judge of the Telangana High Court directing his appointment and set aside a contrary judgment of a Division Bench.

The dispute arose from the cancellation of the candidature of a police constable aspirant who had disclosed, at the time of applying, that a criminal case had been registered against him by a woman with whom he was allegedly involved in a relationship for nearly four years. According to the complaint, the woman alleged that the appellant had promised to marry her but eventually married another woman.

She thereafter lodged an FIR, following which a chargesheet was filed against the appellant and his parents on charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. However, no allegation of ra