Pre-marital relationships no ground to judge character: Supreme Court
What's the story
The Supreme Court has ruled that pre-marital relationships cannot be used to judge a person's character. The ruling came in the case of Gajula Thirupathi, a Telangana police constable recruit whose selection was canceled due to a past criminal case related to his relationship with a neighbor. The court emphasized that "physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not...be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship."
Relationship dynamics
Court's take on ending relationships
The Supreme Court added, "There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice." It also said that not every relationship ends in marriage, and a failed romance shouldn't be equated with deception. The bench stressed that if two adults are in a long-term relationship, there is a presumption of valid consent. "Not every relationship culminates in marriage," the court said, adding that authorities should be sensitive to changing social realities.
Assumption scrutiny
Lok Adalat settlements not misconduct: SC
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan also addressed whether a settlement at the Lok Adalat can be seen as an admission of guilt. The bench clarified that such settlements shouldn't automatically imply misconduct. It criticized drawing conclusions not established in court proceedings, stating "the public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant."
Employment implications
Ruling challenges stereotypes around personal choices
The court criticized efforts to draw conclusions not established legally. It ruled, "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...there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant."