Rummy and Poker games of skill and not games of chance: HC sets aside Ban

The Madras High Court, in the matter of All India Gaming Federation Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, has issued an order to set aside a ban on Rummy and Poker games as they are games of skill and not games of chance.

Key points of the Order:

All writ petitions involve common questions of law and are based on a similar set of facts. To avoid rigmarole, they are decided by this common judgment.

The petitioners assail the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2022” or “the impugned Act”].

The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dominance Games Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat is erroneous, as the conclusion is based on the fact that the initial distribution of cards in the game is not within the control of the player. The Gujarat High Court has failed to consider that other card games, including rummy and bridge, also include initial distribution of cards and are held to be games of skill by the Apex Court in the case of K.Satyanarayana (supra). The Gujarat High Court relied upon the judgment in the case of R vs. Kelly from the Courts of Appeal in the United Kingdom and the same is of no avail, as it was based on the lawfully applicable to the United Kingdom and they do not follow the predominance test. Moreover, whether online poker is permissible or not falls within the jurisdiction of the Self Regulatory Body, notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

It is the further submission that games of skill do not cease to be one even when played with stakes. The Kerala High Court in the case of Head Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala has held that playing games of skill for stakes does not amount to gambling. There is no concept of an independent category of “betting” on games of skill. All “betting”, sought to be got in the ambit of “betting and gambling”, is betting on games of chance. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Junglee Games (supra).

The word “betting” cannot be segregated from “gambling” in order to create an alternate field of regulation by the respondent State. The State can only legislate on betting pertaining to gambling, inter alia, betting only on games of chance. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Junglee Games (supra).

The words “betting and gambling” cannot be read as “betting or gambling”. When the provision is clear and unambiguous, the word “or” cannot be read as “and”, the word “and” cannot be read as “or”.

The games of online rummy and poker are no different from playing physical rummy or poker, other than the fact that the game is conducted and played virtually on a platform. The game per se is the same rummy game or the same poker game as in physical format. The State purports unreasonable classification and creates an artificial distinction between online and offline rummy. The State has failed to place any material or evidence on record to justify the difference in playing rummy physically or in online mode and the said classification is in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petitions, as such, stand partly allowed. The prayer to declare the entire impugned Act of 2022 as ultra vires is negated. The Schedule of the impugned Act, including the games of rummy and poker, is set aside. Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) of the impugned Act shall be read as restricted to games of chance and not games involving skill, viz., rummy and poker. There will be no order as to costs.

For Official Judgment Download the PDF Given Below: