Why Supreme Court Held State Laws Banning Online Gaming Are Traceable To 'Public Order' Entry

The Supreme Court recently explained the ingredients of “public order” under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and held that States can rely on their legislative power over public order to regulate and prohibit online betting and gambling activities.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan relied on various judgments holding that the constitutional expression “public order” is not confined to riots, violence or threats to the security of the State, but extends to social and economic disorders that disrupt the normal life of the community.The Court made the observation while upholding the validity of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws regulating online betting and wagering. The Court highlighted that the expression “public order” has consistently received a broad interpretation from Indian courts. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the Court noted that public order signifies the state of tranquillity prevailing among members of a political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the government.Public Order Includes Public Safety, Public Health, Public Comfort And Public InterestThe Court highlighted earlier decisions holding that public order includes protection of health and comfort. Referring to State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, which upheld restrictions on loudspeakers, the Court noted that public order is not confined to preventing violence but also extends to preventing activities detrimental to the community's tranquillity, health, comfort and peaceful existence.The Court observed that States have power to preserve public order includes power to prevent activities that create widespread social harm or public nuisance. The Court also emphasised that public order encompasses public safety, public tranquillity and public interest. Referring to decision in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Court said public order is broad enough to encompass threats to public safety, public health and public welfare.The Court also relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Bagavathy v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that public order should not be understood only in the context of riots, insurrections or violent crimes. It also covers the orderly functioning of society and conditions that enable citizens to peacefully pursue normal activities of life. The High Court held that disturbances in the economic sphere can amount to breach of public order when they disrupt the orderly functioning of society.Tests For Public OrderThe Supreme Court relied on a series of decisions explaining how public order differs from ordinary law and order concerns. Reiterating the principle laid down in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that the decisive test is whether an act disturbs the “even tempo of life of the community”. Every breach of law affects law and order, the Court said, but only those acts that have wider societal repercussions amount to disturbances of public order.The Court also noted the “concentric circles” doctrine evolved in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar. Under this doctrine, “law and order” constitutes the widest circle, “public order” forms a narrower circle within it, and “security of the State” is the narrowest category. An act may affect law and order without affecting public order, just as an act may affect public order without threatening the security of the State.The Court stressed the “potentiality test” developed in earlier cases. According to this principle, the nature of an act alone is not decisive, what matters is its potential impact on society. An act directed at a single individual may still affect public order if its consequences extend to the wider community and disrupt normal social life.Ingredients Of Public OrderThe Court culled out the following ingredients of Public Order –“a) A state of tranquility prevailing amongst members of a political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government; b) The absence of disorder;c) A positive condition of peaceful, ordered social existence enabling normal civic life; d) Public order denotes an orderly state of society and community in which citizens may peacefully pursue their normal activities of life; e) Public order is reflected in the “even tempo” of life in a locality. Therefore, conduct that maintains or secures this even tempo falls within the realm of public order regulation; f) Public safety or interest may, depending upon context, be legitimately invoked in its relation to the maintenance of public order to support legislative action preserving public order; g) Public order occupies a constitutional position between the widest circle of “law and order” and the narrowest circle of “security of the State”, signifying a broader societal impact rather than individual disturbances but less in magnitude when compared to threats to security of the State.”The Court held that...

Why Supreme Court Held State Laws Banning Online Gaming Are Traceable To 'Public Order' Entry

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court held that ‘Public Order’ is not limited to riots or violence, and can include social or economic disturbances which shake society's orderly functioning.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Why Supreme Court Held State Laws Banning Online Gaming Are Traceable To 'Public Order' Entry

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court held that ‘Public Order’ is not limited to riots or violence, and can include social or economic disturbances which shake society's orderly functioning.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers