State Govt Opposes Petitions Challenging Ban On Online Gambling In Karnataka, Says 'No Harm In Preventing Public From Squandering Their Hard Earned Money'

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday began hearing on a batch of petitions filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned all online gambling and betting, and provide maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty upto Rs 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the All India Gaming Federation submitted, "We have challenged the validity of the amendment made to the Karnataka Police Act. New provisions are liable to be struck down. For legislative competence and on grounds of violation of Article 14 and 19." He also contended that "The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala AIR 1957 SC 699, has laid down clear principles of what comes under entry 34 List II, wagering where the result is completely dependent on chance. A common example is lottery. For example, cricket betting is completely banned whether a player will be out before scoring 100 or not. There is no game of skill, it is pure chance." He added, "On the other hand if it is crossword puzzle, rummy, chess, etc these are all activities which are the subject matter of a game of skills. Of late, fantasy cricket is also on the basis of skill. As far as horse racing is concerned, the Madras Legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court. It was held that horse racing is a game of skill and not of a game of chance." Relying on the Supreme Court judgements and the recent Madras High Court judgement which struck down a similar amendment to the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021. Datar contended "When the Supreme court has said Entry 34, does not deal with Game of Skill. The state government cannot enlarge the Legislation and include the Game of Skill." Further, he said, "Online games by definition are not within the state jurisdiction. For example, say a club in Bangalore is allowing playing poker or rummy with money and it is banned as it is a violation as per law enforced in Karnataka, the state jurisdiction can be invoked. But once it goes online you can't justify on the ground that it comes under its territory. Moreover, you can regulate online games and not ban them. If it is allowed everywhere you cannot say that it is banned in Karnataka." Justice Krishna S Dixit, queried on how the word 'regulated' is interpreted by the Apex court. To which Datar said "Prohibition is an extreme form of regulation. For example alcohol. I may regulate the sale of alcohol. Like in Tamil Nadu nobody can privately sell alcohol unless you have a license from the government. Regulation is where the nature of trade is monitored subject to various controls imposed by the government." He added "This (ban) is affecting so many start-ups in Karnataka which are running online games and threat of arrest is a very serious issue." To a query made by the court on how the text of the Tamil Nadu Act which has been struck down is framed similar to the Karnataka Act, Datar said, "It was similar to the impugned act. It is not verbatim, but the net result is the same. He submitted a comparison chart to the court and said "By and large the Tamil Nadu Act banned Poker, rummy and other activities and Karnataka went ahead and ban's everything." He finally submitted that "The reason we are seeking a stay as there is prosecution and threat of an FIR. If I am covered by three SC judgements that are more than 60 years old. Prima facie the law is bad in law, because it is contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court. A similar legislation, if not identical, has been examined thread-bare by the Madras High Court and following SC judgements held it to be unconstitutional. Therefore, It is not open to the state to draft a law which is prima facie beyond its competence." He added, "All the online setups throughout the country in Bombay, Tamil Nadu, Delhi etc can run these online games without any impediment but the people in Karnataka will be stopped. Many of these game companies have foreign investors, people have put in the money. Online games are going on all over the world. If this act is not stayed it will be a travesty of justice. My submission is `` Let Karnataka fall in line with the rest of the country." The court then asked Datar, "Will you permit your grandchild to play such games?" In response, he said "If my son chooses to play a game of bridge, with money I cannot stop him, it is their choice. Our charter (AIGF) says Online games is a game of contract and if you are less than 18 years, you cannot play. Once a person is major, then I cannot control the person's choice. Then why do cinemas also let everyone study only?. Every generation is different." Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for another petitioner, could not complete his arguments and would continue on Thursday. In his preliminary...

State Govt Opposes Petitions Challenging Ban On Online Gambling In Karnataka, Says 'No Harm In Preventing Public From Squandering Their Hard Earned Money'

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

State Govt Opposes Petitions Challenging Ban On Online Gambling In Karnataka, Says 'No Harm In Preventing Public From Squandering Their Hard Earned Money'

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers