The Supreme Court has held that playing cards purely for entertainment and recreation, without any element of betting or gambling, does not amount to an act of moral turpitude. The Court made this observation while restoring the election of Hanumantharayappa YC to the Board of Directors of a cooperative society in Karnataka, which had earlier been invalidated on allegations of gambling.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and the orders passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, which had disqualified Hanumantharayappa. The top court ruled that the alleged misconduct did not meet the threshold of moral turpitude.
“In the very nature of things, we find it difficult that the misconduct attributed to the appellant involves moral turpitude,” the Court said in its May 14 order. “Every action against which one can raise an eyebrow may not necessarily involve moral turpitude.”
The case arose from an incident in which Hanumantharayappa, who was elected on February 12, 2020, with the highest number of votes, was found playing cards on a roadside and was allegedly fined ₹200 without any formal trial. The complaint, brought by a rival candidate Sri Ranganath B, claimed this amounted to a conviction under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, for gambling — an offence involving moral turpitude under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that playing cards in itself cannot be equated with gambling or moral depravity unless it involves betting. “There are so many forms of playing cards. It is difficult to accept that every form of such playing would involve moral turpitude, especially when it is played as a mode of entertainment and recreation,” the bench observed. “In fact, in most parts of our country, playing simpliciter cards, without an element of gambling or betting, is accepted as a poor man’s source of entertainment.”
Emphasizing the disproportionate nature of the punishment, the Court said: “The consequential punishment of setting aside his election is highly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct said to have been committed.”
Accordingly, the apex court restored Hanumantharayappa’s election to the Board of Directors of the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and held that he is entitled to serve his full tenure.
The ruling sets a significant precedent in distinguishing recreational activities from criminal or morally reprehensible behavior and protects the electoral rights of individuals against trivial or disproportionate disqualifications.
