Rejected from a police or government job because of a past relationship or a compromised old FIR? The Supreme Court ruled on 21 May 2026 that a consensual physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot by itself brand you of poor moral character, so a rejection built only on that ground can be challenged.
Quick answer: In Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (2026 INSC 493), the Supreme Court held that recruiters cannot infer low moral character merely from a past consensual relationship between adults, or from an old case that was compromised. Get the rejection reason in writing, file an RTI for the police verification report and the file notings, represent to the appointing authority citing this judgment, then move the High Court if needed.
Short on time? Jump to the step-by-step on how to challenge a character-based rejection, below.
Most police and government recruitment runs a character and antecedents check. A verification report from the local police goes to the recruitment board. If the report mentions an old FIR or a personal dispute, the board often rejects the candidate as having “poor moral character” without examining the context.
That is exactly what the Supreme Court corrected in 2026. The rejection in this case traced back to an old case that arose from a failed relationship. The case had been compromised and compounded, yet it was still treated as proof of bad character. The Court said this reasoning was unfair.
Consider an unnamed candidate who clears the written test and physical test for a constable post. Years earlier, a relationship that did not end in marriage led to a complaint that was later settled. The board rejects the appointment over “moral character”. After 2026, that single ground is no longer enough on its own.
The Court (Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan) laid down a clear principle.
On the facts, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order, and restored the Single Judge's order directing reconsideration of the candidate's candidacy. The candidate did not get an automatic appointment. The board was directed to look at the case again, fairly.
Note: this ruling does not erase every disqualification. A serious pending criminal case, suppression of facts in the application form, or a conviction can still be valid grounds. The ruling targets the narrow, unfair logic of treating a consensual adult relationship, or an old compromised case from one, as proof of bad character.
Do not act on a verbal “you failed verification”. Ask the recruitment board for the written rejection order stating the exact ground. Send a dated request and keep proof of submission. A vague rejection is itself a weakness you can use later.
This is the heart of your case. File a Right to Information application under §6(1) of the RTI Act 2005 to the recruitment board's Public Information Officer (PIO). Ask for:
The PIO must reply within 30 days. See how to use RTI to get your police verification report and RTI for a police character certificate. You can draft the application in minutes with the AI RTI drafter.
Once the report arrives, find the precise line used against you. If it is the existence of a past relationship, or an old case that was compromised and compounded, that is the ground the 2026 judgment directly addresses. If the report is silent or contradictory, that helps you too.
Send a written representation to the appointing authority. Attach the RTI documents. State plainly that under Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, 2026 INSC 493, a consensual adult relationship or an old compromised case cannot be the sole basis for an adverse character finding. Ask for reconsideration. Give a reasonable deadline, such as 30 days.
If the representation fails, file a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226, or approach the relevant administrative tribunal if your service falls under it. Rely on the verification report you obtained through RTI and the 2026 ruling. The Court can direct the board to reconsider your candidacy, exactly as the Supreme Court did. For the recovery route, see how to recover from an adverse police verification.
For a full walkthrough of the appeal and escalation system, The RTI Playbook covers it end to end.
Not on its own, after the 2026 Supreme Court ruling. In Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (2026 INSC 493), the Court held that a consensual relationship between two unmarried adults cannot by itself be treated as proof of poor moral character. A rejection built only on that ground can be challenged.
It should not be the sole ground for an adverse character finding. The 2026 case involved an old matter that had been compromised and compounded, yet was treated as bad character. The Court said this was unfair. Always disclose the case honestly in your form; suppression is a separate, serious problem.
File an RTI under §6(1) to the recruitment board's PIO asking for the verification report, the file notings, and the rule relied on for rejection. The reply is due in 30 days. See the guide on getting your police verification report through RTI.
No. In the 2026 case the Supreme Court directed the board to reconsider the candidacy fairly. It did not order an automatic appointment. The ruling removes an unfair ground; the board must then take a fresh, lawful decision on your case.
Silence is treated as a deemed refusal. File a first appeal within 30 days of the deadline to the First Appellate Authority of the same body. If that also fails, you can approach the State or Central Information Commission. Keep all dates and acknowledgements.
The case arose in police recruitment, but the principle about character and contemporary social norms is broadly relevant to government recruitment that runs character checks. Cite it as persuasive authority, and pair it with the specific rules governing your post.