Holding that physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about a person’s character, the Supreme Court has set aside the Telangana High Court’s order that had upheld the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s provisional selection.A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra said that authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-marital relationships as such relationships were common today.“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 to have a relationship of their choice,” it said.Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Misra said where a relationship between two adults spans a considerable period; there arises a presumption of valid consent.“Not every relationship culminates in marriage. Therefore, merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage is no ground to believe that one party has cheated the other,” Justice Misra wrote.The petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable but his selection was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board on the ground that a case of rape on the promise of marriage was lodged against him in 2014 which amounted to moral turpitude.Interestingly, the petitioner himself had disclosed in his application form the case that arose from his relationship with a neighbor. However, the case was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties agreed to settle it and no charge for rape under Section 376 IPC was ever pressed.Following cancellation of his selection by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, the petitioner moved the Telangana High Court and a single-judge of the high court set aside the cancellation and directed the Board to reconsider its decision. Even on reconsideration, the Board didn’t change its decision, forcing the petitioner to move the high court again.Setting aside the Board’s decision, the single- judge set aside that cancellation and directed the petitioner to be appointed. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single judge’s decision, saying compounding of the offence before a Lok Adalat did not amount to a clean acquittal and that the Board was the best judge of suitability for a disciplined force.Setting aside the Division Bench’s order, the top court said the compromise was not foisted on the victim. “In criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled that unless the charge is proved in a court of law there shall be a presumption of innocence,” the top court said in its May 21 verdict.“When the victim herself chose to withdraw the allegations and compound the offence, there was no occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so when both parties were adults and neighbors, knowing each other for several years,” the top court said, allowing the petitioner’s appeal.“We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Screening Committee to deny appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and was justifiably set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court,” the top court said, faulting the Division Bench of the High Court for wrongly setting aside the order of the Single Judge.