NEW DELHI: Citing the changing times and acknowledging the reality that premarital sex has become common, the Supreme Court has said that being in such a relationship cannot be termed as moral turpitude to draw adverse inferences about a person’s character. The authorities must keep in mind this reality and not initiate punitive action on such grounds, it held.A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan came to the rescue of an aspiring police official whose provisional selection in the force was cancelled on the ground that he had been in a physical relationship with a girl, and she had later filed a complaint against him. Though the girl had reached a compromise with him and the matter got settled in Lok Adalat, the Telangana govt said the man stood disqualified as he was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. Telangana HC also ruled against him, saying he was indicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, and the compounding of the offence (compromise) did not amount to a clean acquittal.Rejecting the plea of the state government and also the HC’s findings, the SC quashed the government’s decision and paved the way for the man’s recruitment in the force. The court made it clear that engaging in premarital sex could not be a reason to bar the petitioner from the force. It pointed out that the victim herself had decided not to step into the witness box to depose against him.“Besides, authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital relationships. Such premarital relationships are common today. Moreover, a 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 person in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults from having a relationship of their choice...” the bench said.It highlighted that in a relationship which spans a considerable period, the court has time and again quashed criminal proceedings initiated by one party against the other on the ground that the victim was lured into a physical relationship under a false promise of marriage, because there would be a presumption that such a relationship was based on valid consent.In this case, the petitioner had truthfully revealed that a case had been registered against him and also told the authority that the case was amicably settled in the Lok Adalat. He said that he had been in a consensual relationship, which did not result in marriage, and a case was registered after he married another girl.The state, however, said police are a disciplined force and “the slightest doubt about the character of a candidate emanating from his past antecedents can be the basis to deny appointment”.Rejecting the state govt’s stand, SC said, “Whether the 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 (state and others) to read between the lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant.”