Sex Before Marriage Is No Crime, No Ground To Judge Character: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has issued a fresh ruling. Consensual relationships do not define personal character. Unmarried adults have the right to choose partners. No law bans relationships between any two consenting adults. A bench led by Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra stated this. They provided this view to Bar and Bench.

The court challenged deep-set social assumptions today. Failed romances do not mean a person is dishonest. Authorities must not mistake a breakup for deception. A relationship ending without marriage is not a crime. The bench warned against unfair judgments based on these biases. All institutions must adapt to these changing social norms.

Court Ruling on Recruitment

This ruling came from a specific recruitment case. Gajula Thirupathi applied to be a police constable in Telangana. His selection was cancelled due to a past case. This case involved a relationship with a neighbour. It happened over a decade ago. The police board claimed it showed moral turpitude.

The job dispute went to the Supreme Court. The top court overturned the police board's decision. It said the agency lacked valid grounds for this action. No evidence existed of any actual criminal wrongdoing. The court ordered his appointment to be restored. This decision sets a vital precedent for future job applicants.

Consent and Legal Presumptions

The judges also discussed long-term consensual relationships. A long relationship suggests valid consent between partners. Courts have quashed many false cases in the past. These cases often claim luring with promises of marriage. There is now a presumption of consent in such situations. This protects adults from unfair criminal charges.

The bench also addressed settlement at the Lok Adalat. Such settlements cannot count as an admission of guilt. Compounding a case does not prove moral wrongdoing. Employers cannot assume misconduct without concrete evidence. If the complainant were coerced, authorities could act. However, no such proof existed in this case.