1995 (4) TMI 284 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether video games require to be regulated under the respective Mysore Police Act, 1963 and the notifications issued thereunder and the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the orders of the Tamil Nadu Government in GOMs No. 166-0 dated 18-1-1993 and the allied? Held that - The Karnataka appellants urgument that the High Court having severed para 3(2) of the Order being inapplicable to the video games, the whole order must be struck down as being inseparable is not acceptable as it has already been held that the orders are statutory in character. Though the delegated authority under the Act made a general order, it may well be that a part thereof is not applicable, or is bad, in relation to a particular trade or business. Partly good and partly bad legislation cannot be struck down as a whole. To the extent it becomes applicable to a particular trade or business, it would be valid and operative and the balance remains either inapplicable or invalid. Diverse situations may arise in a particular trade or business. For that reason, the delegated legislation cannot be, condemned as a whole unless the invalid part is inextricably interconnected with the valid. The Court is, therefore, entitled to consider whether the rule as a whole or in part is valid or becomes invalid or inapplicable. On its finding that to the extent the rule is not relevant, the Court is entitled to set aside or direct to disregard the irrelevant or inapplicable part leaving the rest intact and operative. The condition in para 4 of the Bangalore order envisages thus (5) The licensing authority shall in deciding whether to grant or refuse licence for conducting public amusements does not provide for a right of hearing. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Regulation of video games under the Mysore Police Act, 1963, and the Madras City Police Act, 1888.
2. Definition and classification of video games as 'gaming' under the relevant Acts.
3. Fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
4. Licensing requirements and powers of the Commissioner under the Mysore and Madras Acts.
5. Applicability of the Bangalore Order to video games.
6. Requirement of a hearing before rejecting a license application.
7. Validity and application of the Commissioner's orders and notifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regulation of video games under the Mysore Police Act, 1963, and the Madras City Police Act, 1888:

The primary question was whether video games require regulation under the respective Mysore Police Act, 1963, and the Madras City Police Act, 1888. The court held that video games fall under the purview of these Acts and the respective orders issued by the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Governments. The conditions of the license were deemed neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and the actions of the Commissioner were within the powers conferred by the Acts and Orders.

2. Definition and classification of video games as 'gaming' under the relevant Acts:

The court examined whether video games fall within the definition of 'gaming' as per the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930, the Madras City Police Act, and the Mysore Act. The court noted that gaming includes games of chance and skill combined. Video games, which involve stakes or money, were classified as gaming. The court emphasized that even if video games are for amusement, they still constitute gaming if they involve elements of chance or mixed skill and chance.

3. Fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution:

The appellants argued that regulation of video games violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21. The court held that while individuals have the right to trade or business, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The regulations imposed on video games were deemed reasonable and necessary to prevent public harm and maintain public order, thereby not violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.

4. Licensing requirements and powers of the Commissioner under the Mysore and Madras Acts:

The court addressed the appellants' contention that they were not required to obtain licenses under the notifications. It was held that the Commissioner has the authority under Section 31 of the Mysore Act and Section 39 of the Madras City Police Act to regulate and license video games. The licensing requirements were found to be within the powers conferred by the respective Acts.

5. Applicability of the Bangalore Order to video games:

The court examined whether the Bangalore Order applied to video games. It was concluded that the dimensions of the place where video games are played are irrelevant to the applicability of the Order. The Order regulates public places of amusement, and video games fall within this category. The court rejected the contention that the Order does not apply due to the seating capacity clause, stating that the provision is general in nature and includes video games.

6. Requirement of a hearing before rejecting a license application:

The appellants argued that their license applications were rejected without a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that while the licensing authority must provide reasons for rejecting a license, a hearing is not mandatory unless adverse material gathered behind the applicant's back is relied upon. In such cases, the applicant must be given an opportunity to respond to the adverse material before a decision is made.

7. Validity and application of the Commissioner's orders and notifications:

The court upheld the validity of the Commissioner's orders and notifications, stating that they have statutory force. The orders were found to be reasonable and necessary to regulate video games in the interest of public order and safety. The court also addressed the contention that the entire Order should be struck down if part of it is inapplicable, stating that only the inapplicable part should be disregarded, leaving the rest intact.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the regulations and licensing requirements for video games under the Mysore Police Act, 1963, and the Madras City Police Act, 1888. The court found that the regulations did not violate the fundamental rights of the appellants and were necessary to maintain public order and safety. The licensing authorities were directed to provide reasons for rejecting license applications and to ensure that any adverse material is communicated to the applicants for a response. The court also dismissed the contempt petitions.

← Previous Next →