9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 240 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - power of the Government to include the game Online Rummy played for stakes within the purview of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 - validity of notification issued by the Government, amending the exemption notification issued on 30.09.1976 under Section 14A of the Act - only restriction in the notification is that no side betting shall be allowed - HELD THAT - Section 14 deals with games of mere skill. The observation referred to by the State Attorney can hence only take in situations like side betting during a game of Rummy, which has been taken care of by Ext.P7 notification and to profit or gain made by the owner of the house or club from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes. What matters is not the stakes but the profit or gain made by the owner of the house. Side betting is not a term that the law is not aware of. What is sought to be done in the case on hand is not a prohibition of Online Rummy as a trade of business which is dangerous to the community. Instead, the game Online Rummy is sought to be exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Act, to a limited extent when it is not played for stakes, as a game predominantly of skill. Such a notification is totally ill-conceived in my opinion since, the moment online rummy is recognised as a game predominantly involving skill, it will come within the purview of Section 14 of the Kerala Act and nothing more is required to take it out of the purview of the other provisions of the Kerala Act, which speak of penalty for gaming. So also, stakes cannot be the criterion for assessing whether a game is one involving skill or chance. On the question whether the power available to the State to issue a notification under Section 14A to exempt a game, clothe it with a power to notify a game which is a game of mere skill under Section 14, it is held that once a game comes within the purview of Section 14, any notification under Section 14A exempting it further as a game involving skill predominantly is only a superfluous, and even without such a notification, the game stands exempted. The question whether a prayer for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 notification is maintainable does not really arise for consideration, since one of the writ petitions already had a prayer seeking declaration and the other writ petitions have been amended including a prayer for declaration. On the question whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that Ext.P6 notification is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, it is held in the affirmative. Ext.P6 notification is declared as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and hence not enforceable - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Is Rummy a game of mere skill, so as to take it out of the purview of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960? 2. Can Rummy be exempted from the provisions of the Act only by means of a notification? 3. Does Rummy played for stakes become a game neither covered by Section 14 nor by a notification issued under Section 14A? 4. Can Online Rummy be considered a game of skill and not of chance? 5. Does inclusion of stakes for playing Online Rummy change its nature as a game of skill? 6. Does the power to issue a notification under Section 14A to exempt a game also include the power to notify a game of mere skill under Section 14? 7. Is a writ of certiorari to quash the notification maintainable? 8. Are the petitioners entitled to a declaration that the notification is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Detailed Analysis: 1. Is Rummy a game of mere skill, so as to take it out of the purview of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960? The judgment refers to the Supreme Court decisions in Satyanarayana and K.R. Lakshmanan, which categorically held that Rummy is a game of mere skill. The Kerala Gaming Act's Section 14 excludes games of mere skill from its purview. The court concluded that Rummy is indeed a game of mere skill, thereby exempting it from the Act. 2. Can Rummy be exempted from the provisions of the Act only by means of a notification? The court held that even without a notification under Section 14A, Rummy remains a game of mere skill as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, Rummy is inherently exempt from the provisions of the Act due to its classification as a game of skill. 3. Does Rummy played for stakes become a game neither covered by Section 14 nor by a notification issued under Section 14A? The court clarified that the element of skill in playing a game is not dependent on stakes. Playing for stakes or not does not affect whether a game is one of skill. Hence, Rummy played for stakes remains a game of skill and is covered by Section 14. 4. Can Online Rummy be considered a game of skill and not of chance? The court applied the same reasoning used by the Supreme Court to classify physical Rummy as a game of skill to Online Rummy. It held that Online Rummy is also a game of skill. 5. Does inclusion of stakes for playing Online Rummy change its nature as a game of skill? The court held that the inclusion of stakes does not alter the nature of Online Rummy as a game of skill. Whether played with or without stakes, Online Rummy remains a game of skill. 6. Does the power to issue a notification under Section 14A to exempt a game also include the power to notify a game of mere skill under Section 14? The court found that once a game is classified under Section 14 as a game of mere skill, any further notification under Section 14A is superfluous. The game stands exempted without the need for additional notifications. 7. Is a writ of certiorari to quash the notification maintainable? The court noted that the question of maintainability of a writ of certiorari does not arise since the petitioners have sought a declaration. The court granted the amendment to include a prayer for a declaration. 8. Are the petitioners entitled to a declaration that the notification is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? The court declared that the notification is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The notification was issued in relation to a game already exempted under Section 14 and does not come within the meaning of 'gambling' or 'gaming'. Therefore, providing a platform for playing the game, which is a business, cannot be curtailed. Conclusion: The court declared the notification as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions were allowed, and the notification was deemed unenforceable.
|
