The Supreme Court has ruled that playing cards purely for entertainment, without any element of betting or gambling, does not amount to moral turpitude.

The court made this observation while reinstating the election of Y.C. Hanumantharayappa to the board of a cooperative society in Karnataka.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing a case involving Hanumantharayappa, who had been elected to the Board of Directors of the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. on February 12, 2020, securing the highest number of votes.

His election was challenged by B. Ranganath, a rival candidate, on the ground that Hanumantharayappa had been convicted under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, allegedly for gambling. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies upheld the objection, finding the offence to involve moral turpitude, and set aside his election under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. The Karnataka High Court later upheld this decision.

However, the Supreme Court took a different view, noting that Hanumantharayappa had only been fined ₹200 without trial after being found playing cards with others on a roadside. The Bench stated:

“It is difficult to accept that the misconduct attributed to the appellant involves moral turpitude. The expression is used to describe inherently depraved or base conduct, not mere activities that may raise an eyebrow.”

The Court emphasized that playing cards, when not associated with gambling, is commonly seen as a form of recreation, particularly among economically weaker sections. It also noted that Hanumantharayappa was not a habitual gambler.

“There are so many forms of playing cards... 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,” the Court observed.

Calling the punishment of setting aside his election “highly disproportionate” to the nature of the alleged misconduct, the Court concluded that the action taken against Hanumantharayappa could not be sustained.

Accordingly, in its May 14 order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and quashed the orders passed by the Joint Registrar. It restored Hanumantharayappa’s election to the cooperative society’s board until the completion of his term.