'Assault On Public Servants By A Private Individual Constitutes Offence Of Moral Turpitude': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that assault on public servants by a private individual, particularly in the course of unlawful agitation, constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court observed that such acts reflect a breach of social duty and undermine public order, thereby falling within the concept of depravity and conduct contrary to accepted standards of society.

Justice Rajnish R. Vyas was hearing a criminal application filed by an accused seeking a stay of conviction for offences including rioting, assault on public servants, and damage to public property. The applicant contended that unless his conviction was stayed, he would be disqualified from being nominated as a councillor under Section 10(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, which bars persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude. The applicant argued that the offence in question did not amount to moral turpitude and relied on judicial precedents to contend that not every offence constitutes such a disqualification.

The Court noted that determining whether an act is moral or immoral requires considering how society or the community views it. If society classifies an act as involving moral turpitude, an individual's personal belief to the contrary does not make the act moral or absolve it.

The Court examined the findings of the Sessions Court, which established that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, obstructed public roads, pelted stones on buses and police vehicles, and caused injuries to police personnel deployed for law and order duties. It noted that public property was damaged and public servants were assaulted while performing official duties.

The Court held that the conduct of the applicant, which included participation in violent agitation, obstruction of public movement, damage to public property, and assault on public servants, clearly amounted to an act involving moral turpitude. It emphasised that public servants are integral to governance, and any assault on them by private individuals taking the law into their own hands reflects conduct that society would view as morally reprehensible.

“… the applicant can be said to be the act constituting an act of moral turpitude since it was baseless and was in breach of a social duty that a citizen owes to fellow citizens or to society… Public servants are the backbone of the institution, and any assault on them by a private individual, for agitation, by taking the law into their own hands, would constitute the offence of moral turpitude,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that the grant of a stay of conviction is an exceptional relief and cannot be granted as a matter of right. It observed that the statutory bar under Section 10(1)(a) is clear and that the applicant had failed to make out any exceptional case warranting suspension of conviction.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application for a stay of conviction, holding that the conviction for offences involving moral turpitude could not be interfered with at this stage.

Case Title: Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 921 of 2026 in Appeal/344/2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)146

Click Here To Read/Download Order