‘Consensual Premarital Sex Is Not a Stain on Character’: Supreme Court Makes Significant Observation

The Supreme Court has observed that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot be treated as a sign of bad character and that not every relationship is expected to end in marriage.

In a significant observation, the Supreme Court has said that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot by itself be used to draw an adverse conclusion about a person’s character.

The ruling came while the court was hearing a case involving a candidate whose appointment was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board due to his involvement in a criminal case linked to a failed relationship.

A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra noted that social realities have changed and pre-marital relationships are becoming increasingly common. The court held that a consensual relationship between two unmarried adults cannot be regarded as “moral turpitude” or a basis for questioning an individual’s character.

The court made it clear that there is no law preventing two unmarried adults from entering into a consensual relationship of their choice.

The bench also rejected the notion that a relationship should automatically be viewed negatively simply because it did not culminate in marriage.

“Not every relationship culminates in marriage,” the court observed, adding that no adverse inference can be drawn merely because a relationship ends without marriage.

According to the court, the mere fact that a relationship did not lead to marriage does not justify the assumption that one party deceived the other. The judges pointed out that the appellant and the complainant were neighbours and had been in a relationship for nearly four years.

The court reiterated the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent unless allegations are proven through legal proceedings.

The bench also addressed cases involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage. It observed that a settlement before a Lok Adalat does not automatically amount to an admission of guilt by the accused.

The Supreme Court said employers should not draw adverse conclusions solely because a criminal case ended through a settlement, unless there is evidence that the complainant was forced, threatened or pressured into the compromise.

Referring to the facts of the case, the court noted that the two individuals had known each other for several years and there was nothing on record to indicate coercion, intimidation or undue influence in arriving at the settlement.

The judgment further observed that where a relationship between consenting adults continues over a substantial period, a presumption of valid consent ordinarily arises unless evidence suggests otherwise.

The ruling underscores the court’s view that personal relationships between consenting adults should not automatically become grounds for questioning character, employment suitability or moral conduct in the absence of proven wrongdoing.