The Supreme Court of India has restored the candidature of Gajula Thirupathi, a police constable aspirant from Telangana, ruling on 8 June that the state's recruitment authorities acted arbitrarily in rejecting his appointment over a criminal case rooted in a failed relationship — a case that had already been compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015. The apex court set aside a Telangana High Court Division Bench judgment that had upheld the cancellation of his provisional selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).

Background of the Case

Thirupathi had been booked under Sections 417, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC following a complaint by a woman who alleged he had promised to marry her but subsequently married someone else. He disclosed this case in his application — a fact the Supreme Court noted as evidence of full and truthful compliance, with no allegation of suppression of facts.

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board nonetheless cancelled his provisional selection, categorising the allegations as involving moral turpitude and deeming him unsuitable for the police force. The High Court's Division Bench upheld that decision — a ruling the Supreme Court has now overturned.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that while employers retain the right to assess a candidate's suitability even after acquittal or discharge in a criminal matter, such assessments must not be arbitrary. The Bench laid down a two-pronged test: authorities must demonstrate that an offence involving moral turpitude was indeed committed, and that material exists against the candidate beyond a mere acquittal or discharge.

'The state and its officers cannot act arbitrarily. Therefore, when such a decision is subjected to judicial review, to ensure that the same is not held arbitrary, in our view, it must be demonstrated that, (a) there exists material on record to indicate that an offence involving moral turpitude was indeed committed; and (b) there exists material against the candidate even though he may have succeeded in earning an acquittal or a discharge,' the apex court stated.

Court Rejects 'Compromise Equals Guilt' Reasoning

The Supreme Court took sharp exception to the recruitment board's reasoning that the Lok Adalat compromise amounted to an admission of guilt. 'The statement that the compromise amounts to admission of guilt is without any basis. Further, the statement that the appellant compromised because he was guilty is completely perverse and defies logic,' the Justice Misra-led Bench observed.

The court found no material to suggest the compromise was obtained through threats or coercion, further undermining the board's adverse inference.

Observations on Pre-Marital Relationships

In a notable passage, the Bench cautioned recruitment authorities against drawing adverse character conclusions solely from the breakdown of a pre-marital relationship between consenting adults. 'Authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-marital relationships. Such pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, 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,' the court said.

It further held that not every relationship culminates in marriage, and a failed relationship cannot automatically be construed as evidence that one party cheated the other.

Outcome and Next Steps

The Supreme Court restored the single-judge High Court order that had directed reconsideration of Thirupathi's appointment, holding the Screening Committee's decision to deny him appointment as arbitrary. The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed. The Telangana recruitment authorities are now required to reconsider his candidature afresh.