Premarital S*x Now Very Common, Cannot Be Seen as Black Mark on Person's Character: Supreme Court

Acknowledging that premarital relationships have become common, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that engaging in premarital s*x cannot be classified as "moral turpitude" to draw negative conclusions about an individual's character. The apex court emphasized that administrative authorities must remain sensitive to changing societal norms and should not initiate punitive actions on such grounds.

The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan. The judgment came during a hearing for an aspiring police official from Telangana whose provisional selection was cancelled by the state government. The state had disqualified the candidate on the grounds that he was involved in an offence of moral turpitude following a past complaint filed by a woman with whom he had a physical relationship. ‘Consent Matters’: Supreme Court Lays Down Key Principle in S*x Work and Trafficking Cases.

How the Dispute Began

The dispute originated after the candidate entered into a physical relationship with a woman, which did not culminate in marriage. Following his marriage to another individual, the woman registered a complaint against him. The matter was subsequently settled amicably between both parties in a Lok Adalat.

When applying for the police force, the petitioner truthfully disclosed the prior registration and subsequent settlement of the case. Despite the compromise, the Telangana government cancelled his selection, maintaining that the police force requires disciplined individuals and that any doubt regarding a candidate's past antecedents could justify denying an appointment. The Telangana High Court subsequently upheld the government's decision, ruling that the compromise did not equate to a clean acquittal from an offence involving moral turpitude.

Supreme Court Reverses Disqualification

The Supreme Court rejected the findings of the High Court and the state government, quashing the decision to cancel the candidate's selection. The bench cleared the path for his recruitment, noting that the complainant had chose not to depose against him in court. The bench observed that in long-standing relationships, criminal proceedings initiated under the claim of a false promise of marriage are frequently quashed because a presumption of valid consent exists. ‘You Too Committed Offence By Having Sex Outside Marriage’: Supreme Court Warns Married Woman Over Affair, Upholds Lover’s Bail.

Observations on Changing Societal Norms

In its judgment, the bench addressed the evolving nature of modern relationships and the legal standing of consensual adult interactions. The judges noted:

“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...”

Addressing the state's argument regarding the deception of the complainant, the bench added, “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.”

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 09, 2026 08:12 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).