The Supreme Court ruled that playing cards for fun without gambling isn’t a moral crime. The verdict reinstated a Karnataka man’s cooperative society election.
New Delhi: Today, On May 25, The Supreme Court of India has given an important clarification that playing cards just for fun and entertainment, without any element of betting or gambling, does not count as moral turpitude.
This ruling came while the court was hearing a case involving the election of a member of a cooperative housing society in Karnataka.
The case was related to Hanumantharayappa YC, who was elected to the Board of Directors of the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd in Karnataka.
His election was challenged because, many years ago, he had been fined ₹200 for playing cards with some other people on the roadside.
Importantly, no trial was held, and there was no evidence that betting or gambling was involved.
The matter came before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, who ruled in favour of Hanumantharayappa and restored his election.
The Supreme Court said that simply playing cards in public without gambling or betting is not a crime that should attract disqualification from public posts or positions of trust.
The bench observed:
“In the very nature of things, we find it difficult that the misconduct attributed to the appellant involves moral turpitude.”
The court explained what moral turpitude means, saying:
“It is well known that the expression moral turpitude is used in legal as well as societal parlance to describe a conduct, which is inherently base, vile, deprave or having some connection showing depravity.”
The judges further clarified that just because an act might raise some eyebrows or be socially frowned upon, that does not automatically make it a morally corrupt act.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Fines LawSikho Rs 1 Lakh, Dismisses Defamation Case Over X Tweets
They added:
“Every action against which one can raise an eyebrow may not necessarily involve moral turpitude.”
This judgment is important because the term “moral turpitude” is often used to judge a person’s character, especially when deciding if someone is fit to hold public office or be part of a cooperative society.
But now, the Supreme Court has made it clear that not every small incident or minor wrongdoing should be considered moral turpitude especially if it doesn’t involve any harm to others or society.
In this case, the court emphasized that the act of playing cards without any gambling element is not inherently wrong or immoral.
So, such an act cannot be used to label someone as unfit or disqualify them from contesting or holding a public post.
This ruling sets a significant precedent for similar cases where past minor incidents are wrongly used to disqualify people.
It also brings clarity to how the law should understand the term “moral turpitude,” helping ensure fairness and justice in future cases.
The Supreme Court’s clear stand through this judgment is that without the presence of depravity or criminal intent, a person’s act should not be considered morally corrupt, especially when it involves harmless personal recreation like playing cards.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
