New Delhi: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot be used as a ground to judge a person’s character negatively. In a significant judgment, the top court set aside an order from a lower division bench that had previously upheld the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s provisional selection. The court emphasized that authorities must remain sensitive to changing societal norms regarding pre-marital relationships, noting that such unions are common in modern times.
The bench, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra, stated that no law prohibits two consenting unmarried adults from engaging in a relationship of their choice. Writing the judgment, Justice Misra explained that when a relationship between adults lasts for a considerable period, there is a strong presumption of valid consent. He further noted that because not every relationship culminates in marriage, a breakup cannot simply be viewed as an act of cheating or dishonesty by one party over the other.
The petitioner had originally been provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable. However, the state recruitment board cancelled his selection based on a 2014 case involving allegations of rape under the false promise of marriage, which the board viewed as moral turpitude. The candidate had transparently disclosed this past case on his application form, which stemmed from a long-term relationship with a neighbour. The legal matter was legally settled and compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015, meaning no formal charges of rape were ever pressed.
The case saw a long legal battle before reaching the highest court. A single-judge panel of the high court had initially ruled in favour of the candidate and ordered his appointment. However, a division bench later reversed that decision, arguing that a compromise settlement did not equal a clean acquittal and that the recruitment board should have the final say on the suitability of candidates for a disciplined force.
The top court firmly rejected the division bench’s reasoning, reinforcing the foundational legal principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The justices observed that the complainant willingly chose to withdraw the allegations and settle the matter without any coercion. The court concluded that because both individuals were consenting adults who had known each other for years, the screening committee’s decision to deny the candidate his job was entirely arbitrary. The Supreme Court restored the original single-judge order, clearing the way for the petitioner’s appointment.
