바카라ing cards without gambling not moral turpitude: India’s apex court
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that playing cards for entertainment without gambling does not amount to “moral turpitude”, restoring the election of a man removed from a Karnataka cooperative society board. The verdict came in the case of Hanumantharayappa YC, who was elected with the highest number of votes to the Board of Directors of the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.
Background: dispute over election
Hanumantharayappa was elected on 12 February 2020. Following the election, Sri Ranganath B, who lost the poll, filed a dispute under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. He alleged that Hanumantharayappa had been convicted under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, for gambling. Based on this, the Joint Registrar held the offence involved moral turpitude, disqualifying Hanumantharayappa and setting aside his election.
The Karnataka High Court later upheld the Registrar’s decision. Hanumantharayappa then challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court findings
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh examined the case and found that Hanumantharayappa had been fined ₹200 without trial, after he and a few others were caught playing cards on a roadside. The Court noted that there was no element of gambling or betting involved.
The bench observed that the term “moral turpitude” refers to conduct that is inherently vile, base, or depraved. It clarified that every act of playing cards cannot be categorised as such unless there is a clear link to criminal intent or gambling.
“There are so many forms of playing cards,” the bench stated, “and it is difficult to accept that every such activity involves moral turpitude, especially when it is done purely for entertainment or recreation.”
Court emphasises proportionality
The Court also emphasised that Hanumantharayappa was not a habitual offender and had received the highest number of votes from members of the society. It termed the punishment of disqualifying him as “highly disproportionate” to the nature of the alleged misconduct.
“The appeal is consequently allowed,” the Supreme Court said in its 14 May 2025 order. “The orders of the High Court and the Registrar are set aside.”
