Playing Cards Without Gambling Not Moral Turpitude, Rules Supreme Court; Restores Man’s Election To

Supreme Court: Playing Cards for Recreation Not Moral Turpitude, Restores Man’s Election to Co-op Board

 

In a thoughtful and humane judgment, the Supreme Court has held that playing cards solely for fun and recreation—without any element of betting—cannot be branded as an act of moral turpitude. The decision came as a relief to Hanumantharayappa YC, whose election to the Board of Directors of a cooperative society in Karnataka was earlier invalidated based on an incident where he was allegedly found playing cards on the roadside.

 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and quashed the orders passed under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, which had disqualified Hanumantharayappa. The Court made it clear that the allegations did not cross the legal or moral threshold necessary to constitute disqualification.

 

> “Every action against which one can raise an eyebrow may not necessarily involve moral turpitude,” the Court aptly observed in its May 14 order.

 

 

 

Background of the Case

 

Hanumantharayappa was elected to the Board on February 12, 2020, with the highest number of votes. Later, a rival candidate, Sri Ranganath B, alleged that Hanumantharayappa had been fined for playing cards on the roadside—an act he claimed was a violation of Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and hence a disqualification under Section 17(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act.

 

No formal trial was conducted, and the fine reportedly imposed was a mere Rs. 200.

 

Supreme Court’s View

 

The top court saw the situation for what it truly was—a trivial act blown out of proportion for political gain. It held that playing cards, without gambling or betting, is a common and culturally accepted pastime, especially among the economically weaker sections. The Court noted:

 

> “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.”

 

 

 

The bench emphasized that not every act, even if frowned upon by some, deserves the serious label of moral turpitude—a term traditionally reserved for acts involving fraud, dishonesty, or gross moral failure.

 

Calling the punishment "highly disproportionate", the Court underlined the importance of fairness and context, especially in matters affecting democratic representation.

 

Final Verdict

 

The Supreme Court reinstated Hanumantharayappa’s election to the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., allowing him to serve out his full tenure.

 

This ruling sets a significant precedent: it warns against weaponizing minor or culturally benign actions to strip individuals of their democratic rights. It’s a reminder that law and justice must be tempered with reason, context, and compassion—and that not every card on the table signals wrongdoing.

AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube