The Supreme Court of India in the case of the State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. P. Soupramaniane held that all cases of assault or simple hurt do not involve moral turpitude and each case has to be examined in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Soupramaniane was an employee of the State Bank of India (“SBI”). Following the conviction of Soupramaniane in a case u/s. 324 of the I.P.C, Soupramaniane was discharged from service by the SBI as per the provisions of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The matter was argued by the parties all the way up to the apex court
RATIO DECIDENDI
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the offence committed by Soupramaniane was one involving moral turpitude warranting his discharge from service. The Supreme Court considered the facts of the criminal case which revealed that the assault by Soupramaniane was the result of previously existing political rivalry between two groups, and that the injury caused to the victims was only in the nature of simple hurt. The court further laid down the tests to be applied to determine if an offence involves moral turpitude as follows:
- Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of the society in general;
- Whether the motive which lead to the act was a base one; and
- Whether on account of the act having been committed, the perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon in the society.
The Supreme Court observed that there are three kinds of crimes – the first being crimes against individuals like assault, rape etc., the second being crimes against property like robbery, dacoity etc. wherein the ultimate goal is material benefit, and the third type being crimes against society such as gambling, prostitution etc.
The Supreme Court observed that to qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, it requires both reprehensible conduct and scienter, whether with specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness or recklessness. The Supreme Court held that it was difficult to state that every assault was not an offence involving moral turpitude, however, all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be said to be offences involving moral turpitude and whether a case involves moral turpitude or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. With this observation, the Apex Court stated that the actions of Soupramaniane could not constitute commission of an offence involving moral turpitude.
ANALYSIS
The apex court has rightly held that all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. Character and nature of crime are crucial elements in deciding whether an offence qualifies as one involving moral turpitude or not and each case should be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances.
While the court has rightly laid down the test to determine if an offence involves moral turpitude or not, it has not elucidated as to in what manner these tests are to be applied. For example, an act may shock the moral conscience of one section of society and at the same time not appear to be morally wrong to another section since the moral inventory of each section of the society is largely different. However, as can be seen from the recent progressive judgements of the apex court whereby Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down so far as it applied to consensual sex between persons of the same gender or the judgement whereby entry of women into the Sabarimala temple was allowed, it can be seen that the Supreme Court has guided the general public in the right direction. In these cases, several persons from our society were against the acts of the concerned individuals and yet the apex court in its supreme wisdom passed the aforementioned judgements. These judgements have been hailed as progressive judgements because the court interpreted the law considering the nature of our society in the present times. Even in the past, the courts have used tests such as the Contemporary Community Standards Test to interpret what constitutes as “obscenity” in the given facts and circumstances of the case. However, the present judgement lays down no such criteria and only provides guidelines for interpretation of the law on moral turpitude. Therefore, while the law has granted relief to Soupramaniane, it has not cleared the position on the matter, and it remains to be seen if the concept of what constitutes moral turpitude changes with time or remains static.
Disclaimer: This article is meant for information purpose only and does not purport to be advice or opinion, legal or otherwise, whatsoever. Pioneer Legal does not intend to advertise its service through this article.
