'Moral turpitude' - an innocuous phrase that has managed to linger around in Indian statutes for quite some time. A simple search in Manupatra shows that it has been used in 178 statutes, primarily in termination clauses. One such clause has come under the scanner recently.
Recent reports suggest that the Attorney General has opined that Justice Ganguly can be removed from the Chairmanship of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission under section 23(1A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This provision is 'subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)'. The only ground under sub-section (2) that can be used in this case is clause (e):
"is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the President involves moral turpitude."
Recent reports suggest that the Attorney General has opined that Justice Ganguly can be removed from the Chairmanship of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission under section 23(1A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This provision is 'subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)'. The only ground under sub-section (2) that can be used in this case is clause (e):
"is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the President involves moral turpitude."
Former Lok Sabha speaker Mr. Somnath Chatterjee rightly argued that Justice Ganguly cannot be removed under this clause without being convicted of moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment. So why does the law mandate conviction and sentencing prior to removal of the Chairman? And if he is convicted, why should the opinion of the President on 'moral turpitude' be necessary to remove him?
'Moral turpitude is a compass with the directional needle removed' - so observed Justice Morse in In Re Berk. Julia Ann Simon-Kerr cites some precedents to substantiate this point. Courts have found 'moral turpitude' in poisoning neighbour's cows and selling liquor to slaves. But a judge accused of beating his wife and a postmaster accused of opening others' letters were found not to have indulged in acts of 'moral turpitude'. In short, 'moral turpitude' is merely a matter of personal opinion capable of widely varying interpretation.
So why does so many statutes provide for the 'moral turpitude' removal clause? Because not all convictions may require removal. For example, a member of SEBI need not be removed for being convicted of violating traffic rules. The 'moral turpitude' clause gives the removing authority the discretion to decide if the subject-matter of conviction may bear upon the functioning of the convicted member. Had it not been for this phrase, the legal draftsman would have to diligently think about the possible convictions that should lead to removal and those that should not. However, unlike Indian draftsmen, their foreign counterparts do not use 'moral turpitude' in termination clauses. May be Indian legislative draftsmen should take a cue from these jurisdictions and bury the 'moral turpitude' clause.
'Moral turpitude is a compass with the directional needle removed' - so observed Justice Morse in In Re Berk. Julia Ann Simon-Kerr cites some precedents to substantiate this point. Courts have found 'moral turpitude' in poisoning neighbour's cows and selling liquor to slaves. But a judge accused of beating his wife and a postmaster accused of opening others' letters were found not to have indulged in acts of 'moral turpitude'. In short, 'moral turpitude' is merely a matter of personal opinion capable of widely varying interpretation.
So why does so many statutes provide for the 'moral turpitude' removal clause? Because not all convictions may require removal. For example, a member of SEBI need not be removed for being convicted of violating traffic rules. The 'moral turpitude' clause gives the removing authority the discretion to decide if the subject-matter of conviction may bear upon the functioning of the convicted member. Had it not been for this phrase, the legal draftsman would have to diligently think about the possible convictions that should lead to removal and those that should not. However, unlike Indian draftsmen, their foreign counterparts do not use 'moral turpitude' in termination clauses. May be Indian legislative draftsmen should take a cue from these jurisdictions and bury the 'moral turpitude' clause.
