The consequential punishment of setting aside Hanumantharayappa’s election is highly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by him, the Supreme Court said.

Playing cards for entertainment and recreation without an element of betting and gambling does not involve moral turpitude, the Supreme Court has said as it restored the election of a man in a cooperative society in Karnataka.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that one Y.C. Hanumantharayappa, who was elected to the board of directors of Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., was allegedly fined ₹200 without any trial when some persons, including him were caught playing cards sitting on a roadside.

“In the very nature of things, we find it difficult that the misconduct attributed to the appellant involves moral turpitude. 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. Every action against which one can raise an eyebrow may not necessarily involve moral turpitude,” the Bench said.

Noting that Mr. Hanumantharayappa was not a habitual gambler, the Bench said, “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. 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 Supreme Court said that Mr. Hanumantharayappa was elected to the Board of Directors of the cooperative society with the highest votes and the consequential punishment of setting aside his election is highly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by him.

“For the reasons aforesaid, we are satisfied that the impugned action taken against the appellant cannot be sustained. The appeal is consequently allowed,” the Bench said in its May 14 order.

It set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment upholding the decision to remove Mr. Hanumantharayappa from the post of the directors in the cooperative society.

“The judgment of the High Court as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 are set aside and the election of the appellant to the Board of Directors of the Government Porcelain Factory Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (respondent No.3) is restored till he completes his prescribed tenure,” the Supreme Court said.

At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that Mr. Hanumantharayappa was elected to the Board of Directors of the Society by securing the highest votes and his election was held on February 12, 2020.

Sri B. Ranganath, who lost the election, raised an election dispute before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, inter alia, alleging that the appellant was convicted in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 allegedly for gambling.

Mr. Hanumantharayappa was held guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude and his election was set aside in view of Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.

The High Court also upheld the decision of setting aside his election after which Mr. Hanumantharayappa approached the Supreme Court.