9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 14495, 16063 and 19582 of 2005. 2) Brief facts: (a) The State of Kerala, by notification dated 13.01.2005, issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, (in short 'the Act'), prohibited the sale of all computerized and online lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines, terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold through internet in the State with immediate effect and declared that Kerala shall be a free zone from online and internet lotteries. (b) By a subsequent notification dated 27.01.2005, the State of Kerala decided to prohibit the sale of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by the State as well as by every other State Government in the State of Kerala with immediate effect and declared that the State shall hereafter be a Lottery Free Zone. (c) The State of Kerala, in partial modification of the notification dated 27.01.2005, issued a subsequent notification dated 22.04.2005, permitting the sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government including the State of Kerala and the prohibition imposed on the sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration before this Court is whether the State Government can discriminate between the paper lottery and online lottery in pursuance of the provision of Section 5 of the Act. Rival Submissions: 5) Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that online lottery is also a lottery, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. So, if the State Government intends to prohibit the same, it has to prohibit all the lotteries whether paper or online. The selective prohibition of the sale of online lottery tickets is impermissible, in the light of Section 5 of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and Others (1999) 9 SCC 700. The distinction drawn by the State Government between paper lottery and online lottery is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel further contended that the impugned notification is vitiated by mala fides. It was further alleged that the State Government is being controlled by the paper lottery mafia and under its influence the sale of online lottery tickets has been prohibited. The State Government does not have the competence to issue the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra), has read down Section 5 of the Act, to save it from the vice of unconstitutionality, emanating from conferring unbridled power on the State, which may be termed as abdication of the essential legislative function, by failing to provide guidelines for the exercise of that power. In the said decision, in paragraphs 84 and 87, it was held as follows: "84. In Section 2(b) lotteries are defined to be a Scheme for distribution of prizes by a lot or chance. This definition itself recognizes that even in State lotteries the prizes are to be collected by chance without any skill, hence gambling in nature. Section 3 prohibits that no State lotteries can be organized without the condition stipulated under clauses (a) to (k) of Section 4. Section 4 provides the conditions to be complied with by the State lotteries. To initiate any State lottery it is left to the policy of each State, for this Act is silent. The only control is, in case it decides, then it must follow the conditions as laid down under Section 4. Next comes Section 5 which is subject matter of challenge, the delegation of power to the State to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets organized by every other State. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction over the lotteries organized by other States, what is the way out ? This can only be done by Parliament or by entrusting this power on such State desiring so, which has been done through Section 5. In this background, for this helplessness of a State as recorded in Anraj case-I [(1984) 2 SCC 292] the remedy is provided by entrusting this power on the State under the impugned provision. This helps such State to achieve its objective of lottery (gambling) free zone within its territory. A well-concerned remedy. Next question is what could have been the guideline? If State lotteries are gambling and it cannot be terms as 'trade and commerce' at common parlance for any free right under the Constitution. Such right though recognized under Article 298, so other States may continue to enjoy till prohibited by valid law, and if any State wants within its State lottery-free zone and for which the power is entrusted to such State, it cannot be said in this setting and background and the nature of the subject that such a delegation is of its essential legislative power. The only guideline necessary in such delegation is to see that the State does not pick and choose one State from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads to two possible interpretations, as referred to above. In view of settled principle of interpretations, the interpretation given by the union to read down the provision has substance. This would mean that the State could only exercise such discretion if it decides not to have any lottery within its territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegate is tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a State hence cannot be said to be unbridled delegation. So even to the first part it cannot be said to be arbitrary or unbridled. So, we have no hesitation to approve the interpretation given by the Union to uphold the validity of Section 5." Relying on the above quoted paragraphs, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the State shall either prohibit the sale of all lotteries or allow the sale of all lotteries in the State. Selective prohibition of a particular type of lottery is impermissible in the light of the above binding judgment. 8) In support of this submission learned senior counsel apart from the decision in B.R. Enterprises (supra) relied on the following decisions, viz., The Senior Electric Inspector and Oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act prohibits holding of draws, more than once in a week. This restriction has been made taking into account the conduct of paper lotteries. But, in online lotteries, 70 to 100 draws are made every day in a week. On the above grounds the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Discussion: 10) Before going into the validity of the impugned notification, it is fruitful to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons for framing this legislation is as under: "The conduct of certain types of lottery trade in the country, the malpractices thereof and their impact on the poorer sections of the society has been under scrutiny of the Government for quite some time. The continued prevalence of the popularly known single digit and instant lotteries and the temptation offered by them proved to be the undoing of many families, especially poor daily wagers and low income groups. In spite of the guidelines issued by the Central Government over a period of time as also the guidelines issued in the recent past by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the matter, the evil has not been totally eliminated and it is felt that a Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4 or where tickets of such lottery are sold in contravention of the provisions of Section 5. 7. Penalty.-(1) Where a lottery is organized, conducted or promoted after the date on which this Act receives the assent of the President, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, by any Department of the State Government, the Head of the Department shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head of the Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such contravention. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention under this Act has been committed by a Department of Government and it is proved that the contravention has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer, other than the Head of the Department, such officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." Since no provision is made for investigating the offences under the Act, the provisions under the Code will apply to its investigation, by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Code quoted above. 12) It is also relevant to mention the Notifications issued by the State Government from time to time. "Government of Kerala Reg. No. KL/TV(N)/12/2003-2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Vol.L Thiruvananthapuram 13th January, 2005 23rd Pousha 1926 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (H) Department NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) No. 4/2005/TD dated, Thiruvanathapuram, 13th January, 2005. S.R.O. No. 34/2005 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998), the Government of Kerala hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment of Kerala hereby prohibit the sale of tickets of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every other State Government including lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by the Government of Kerala in the State of Kerala with immediate effect and declare that the State of Kerala shall hereafter be a Lottery Free Zone. By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended to indicate its general purport). Government of Kerala have decided to make the State of Kerala a Lottery Free Zone. This notification is intended to achieve the above object. II G.O.(P) No.11/2005/TD dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 27th January, 2005. S.R.O.No. 74/2005, - In exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998), the Government of Kerala hereby make the following rules to repeal the Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 issued in G.O.(P) No. 118/2003/TD dated the 16th July, 2003 and published as S.R.O.No 646/2003 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 1278 dated the 16th July, 2003, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared the State as a Lottery Free Zone. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998) and in partial modification of the Notification issued as S.R.O. No. 73/2005 dated the 27th January, 2005, the Government of Kerala hereby lift the prohibition partially by permitting the sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government including the State of Kerala provided that the prohibition imposed on the sale of computerized and online lottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government shall continue to remain in force and the territory of the State of Kerala shall be online, internet and computerized lotteries free zone. By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended to indicate its general purport). Government of Kerala by notification issued as G.O. (P) No. 66/2005/TD dated 20th April, 2005, have reconsidered the issue of the prohibition imposed on the sale of all Lottery Tickets in the State of Kerala and have decided to reintroduce Paper Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Act and also by reference to the Object and Scheme of the Act. Going by the scheme of the Act, it appears that violation of any of the conditions contained in Section 4 could be a ground for the State Government to prohibit the sale of tickets of a particular lottery, organized, conducted or promoted by any other State Government. If the State Government thinks it fit, it may prohibit the sale of all lottery tickets in the State and make it a lottery free zone. Section 6 empowers the Central Government to prohibit a lottery run by the State Government. The Central Government can prohibit the running of a lottery by a State Government if it is found that the same is in violation of the provisions of Section 4. The Central Government can also prohibit the running of a lottery if it is found that the tickets of that lottery are sold in a State, where the sale of the same has been prohibited by the concerned State Government under Section 5. 15) In view of the above, it is relevant to mention Entry 40 under List I and Entry 34 in List II of the Seventh Schedule and Article 246 of the Constitution of India which are as under:- Entry 40 List I-Union List "40. Lotteri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized as a tamper proof and safe method of conducting lotteries. Modernization led to spurt of computerization, satellite and internet connectivity which bears a great impact on every aspect of life, made things easier and faster and brought in more transparency. Thus began lottery in another form, popularly called "online lottery." The difference in the lotteries of this form is that "online" is free from possibility of any duplication, tamper etc., and is totally transparent. 17) Online lotteries became popular in our country, only recently. It made their presence felt in India from 2000-2001 onwards. Though all types of lotteries are meant to be covered by the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the deleterious effect of paper lotteries was uppermost in the mind of the Central Government while bringing forth the above legislation as, at the relevant time, paper lotteries were most popular among the people. The various sub-sections of Section 4 will reveal that the irregularities in the conduct of paper lotteries were mainly in the contemplation of the Parliament. The decision in B.R. Enterprises (supra) also dealt with the prohibition of sale of tickets of paper lotteries invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r lottery in this case also various tickets can be printed and sold as such, however, the same may not sell at all because the player does to like to lose the charm of selecting the numbers himself. However, whatever be the position, all the details regarding the number of tickets sold, their respective playing numbers, the number to tickets sold from each terminal etc. are all available in the central server. The generation of tickets for any particular scheme closes 30 minutes before the holding of the draw and no retail terminal can generate a ticket for such draw after such closing and at the time of draw all the details are readily available to the authorities immediately before the draw. The draw is held by the respective State themselves through a tamper free machine and is telecast on the Zee Television Network and watched by the public at large." 19) It was also contended before this Court that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Act and in partial modification of the notification issued earlier declaring Kerala a lottery free zone State, the Government lifted the prohibition partially by permitting the sale of paper lotteries and the prohibition impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities of the appellants which directly affects more than 15 lakhs people of Kerala who have already been deceived and are being continuously cheated on minute to minute basis. The ill effects of these lotteries had assumed major dimensions in the State. The newspaper reports, petitions from the public and reports from the police reveal the magnitude of its ill effects, which include suicides, divorces, starvation and murders. This created more hardship to the respondent-State. 21) The violations in terms of the Act in the case of Meghalaya, Sikkim and Nagaland State lotteries have already been furnished to the Union Government on 12.01.2004 and 23.08.2004, some of which mentioned by the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment are as follows:- "(a) The online lottery tickets of Meghalaya, Sikkim and Nagaland States are printed by the terminal in violation of Section 4(b) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (b) The tickets of these States are printed in the stationery of the Sole- selling agent. (c) The draws are conducted in such a manner that the transparency and credibility of the draw process is not at all established. According to Meghalaya rules, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir distributors and agents. In some cases, some lotteries except one digit all other digits will be pre-fixed and the buyer has to choose only a single digit. In some other cases, one digit of two digit number or of three digit number will be changing continuously, but in a pre-determined cyclic manner, which shows that the draw is held only for one digit. It was detected from the lottery terminals that the tickets of States of Meghalaya and Nagaland are being printed one after another from the same terminal and the same pool in an unbroken manner. Several tickets without the imprint and logo of other State Governments and even without signature of the authorized officer of those States have been found being sold in the State of Kerala. Standard set of rules are printed on the reverse side of the stationery and tickets of more than one States are being printed on the same material, by the same terminal in unbroken strips. The proceeds of the sale of online lotteries are rather shared by the distributors and agents without crediting in the public account of the respective States, in violation of the provisions of the Act. The details of unclaimed money are not brought to the knowle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Government has furnished the details of 926 retail outlets operating in the State. But the contractual agreement between the distributor and these retail outlets were not submitted. vii. The marketing Agent under the Sikkim State Lotteries is empowered to set-up the required infrastructure and use of technology for the draw purpose. It is clearly more than what is statutorily permissible under Section 4(c) of the Act. viii. As per Section 4(e) of the Central Act, 'the State Government itself shall conduct the draws of all the lotteries.' But actual conduct of the draws is done by the Marketing Agent, reducing the role of the State Government to that of a mere spectator, thereby violating the above provision. ix. The Thunderball, the last prize amount of Rs. 20/- is 'when one main number and the Thunder ball (fixed) are matched.' Until clarifications to the contrary are provided with evidence, it has to be presumed that this is a camouflaged single digit lottery specifically prohibited under Section 4(a) of the Central Act." It was also pointed out in the letter to the Government of India that Sikkim has delegated more rights and responsibilities to the Marketing Agents th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enforcement of the Act and that is why the Government of India while framing the 2010 Rules specifically defined 'online lotteries'. Having this background in mind, the Scheme of the Act would clearly show that the Government at that stage was concerned with paper lotteries of all kinds. From the preamble of the Act spelled out from the Statement of Objects and Reasons as re-produced hereinbefore, the necessity to bring about legislation in the matter of regulating lotteries was felt on account of continued prevalence of single digit and instant lotteries. It was primarily done to curb malpractices in the conduct of such lotteries which at that time were paper lotteries only when the Act came into force. 25) With regard to the contention regarding the function of the online lottery, we are of the considered view that any type of manipulation can be done in the printing of tickets at the terminal. The customer cannot know whether the ticket is printed at the terminal based on the command from the central server or not. The State of Sikkim does not have any control over its thousands of terminals all over India. As per Section 4(h) of the Act, the draw should be held once in a week. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uished authors, references in the Encyclopaedia Britcannica and Boston Law Review and others, we find that each concludes, as we have observed, lottery remains in the realm of gambling. Even where it is State-sponsored still it was looked down upon as an evil. Right from ancient time till the day all expressed concern to eliminate this, even where it was legalized for raising revenue either by the king or in the modern times by the State. Even this legitimization was for the sole purpose of raising revenue, was also for a limited period, since this received condemnation even for this limited purpose. All this gives a clear picture of the nature and character of lottery as perceived through the conscience of the people, as revealed through ancient scriptures, also by various courts of the countries." This Court further added: "59.....But it cannot be doubted and it is recognized by all the countries that gambling by its very nature promises to make a poor man a rich man; to quench the thirst of a man in dire economic distress or to a man with a bursting desire to become wealthy overnight it draws them into the magnetic field of lotteries with crippling effect. More often than not, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Section 12, the State of Kerala has framed the "Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2005." 30) Provisions of the Act, in particular, Section 12 of the Act clearly manifest that even though the power to legislate on the subject 'lotteries' is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, the power to legislate as well has been delegated by the Parliament to the respective States in the country and as mentioned above, it is in exercise of that power the State of Kerala has indeed framed the Rules of 2005. It is significant to mention that Section 5 further authorizes a State Government to prohibit the sale of tickets of the lottery organized, conducted or promoted by every other State. Section 5 of the Act was, however, under a serious challenge in B.R. Enterprises (supra). Framed in somewhat different language, the challenge to Section 5 was that the delegation to the State to decide to prohibit the sale of lotteries organized by other States is a delegation by Parliament of its essential legislative power, without any policy or bereft of the guidelines and that there was total abdication of the legislative power of the Parliament which was a naked delegation, hence, viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is each State which has to decide its policy and has to be concerned about its subject. In any case, the Union cannot force any State that it must run its own lotteries. But control of State lotteries running in the territory of other States is left on the Union. The State cannot restrict sales of lotteries organized by other States even in its territory unless authorized by the Union. This difficulty was felt by the State which is indicated in Anraj case-I. That seems to be the reason that Parliament has delegated this power to the State under section 5....." 31) After taking into consideration the background leading to delegation of power by Union to the States, the question as to whether the delegation could be construed to be such as amounting to delegation of its essential legislative power and that too unguided or unbridled was examined. The question was answered as follows:- "84. In Section 2(b) lotteries are defined to be a scheme for distribution of prizes by a lot or chance. This definition itself recognizes that even in State lotteries the prizes are to be collected by chance without any skill, hence gambling in nature. Section 3 prohibits that no State lotterie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance. Perusal of the Act reveals, the scheme of the Act is limited in its application, and it admits the subject it is dealing is gambling in nature. As we have said, the decision to collect or not to collect revenue through State lotteries is exclusively within the policy decision of the State and for this, neither the Union nor Parliament interferes nor is there any indication under the Act. Thus, the question which remains is, if any State decides that it does not want any lotteries but if it feels helpless as having no jurisdiction over the lotteries organized by other States, what is the way out? This can only be done by Parliament or by entrusting this power on such State desiring so, which has been done through Section 5. In this background, for this helplessness of a State as recorded in Anraj case-I [(1984) 2 SCC 292] the remedy is provided by entrusting this power on the State under the impugned provision. This helps such State to achieve its objective of lottery (gambling) free zone within its territory. A well-concerned remedy. Next question is what could have been the guideline? If State lotteries are gambling and it cannot be terms as 'trade and commerce' at c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, the interpretation which upholds the validity should be accepted. So, the interpretation as given by Mr. Ganguli cannot be accepted." "85. There are two parts of the attack of the delegation of power to the State under Section 5. The latter part, by which it can prohibit sale of lottery tickets organized by every State which leaves no scope of any discretion on the States to discriminate from one State to other. So if it decides no lottery tickets of any State to be sold it cannot pick and choose from one State to the other. Once it, as a policy, decides to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets of other States it must prohibit every other State, that is to say, all the States and such a delegation cannot be said to be either abdication of the legislative power of Parliament or to be unbridled or unguided. As we have said looking to the nature of the subject and object of the Act which is to help each State in its endeavor to run State lotteries which would include starting or closing its lotteries and when a State wants to have lottery- free zone in its State, then such a delegation to ban lottery of every other State cannot be said to be invalid. To the first part, there are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the degree of injury. 86. So, whenever a State decides to run or not to run its lotteries it is the State which has to decide as a public policy in the public interest. Once such a decision is taken to have its State lottery-free zone, the entrustment of power by Parliament cannot be said to be ultra vires. 87. We find on plain reading of Section 5, it empowers the State Government within its State to prohibit the sale of tickets of the lotteries organized by every other State. There is also nothing in the language reading by itself so as to say, whether such power can be exercised by the State while running its own lottery or can be exercised only where such State does not run its own lottery. This leads to two possible interpretations, as referred to above. In view of settled principle of interpretations, the interpretation given by the union to read down the provision has substance. This would mean that the State could only exercise such discretion if it decides not to have any lottery within its territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegatee is tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a State hence cannot be said to be unbridled d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This delegation of legislative power of the principal to the delegatee would not amount to abdication of legislative power by the Centre and it would not be without any guidelines and would be sustainable in law if the concerned State may ban a lottery in its own State and of other States as well. What is true with regard to the total ban of lotteries of other States, in our view, would also be true with regard to a particular kind of lottery as the delegation of power has been held to be valid if the power by the delegatee may be used uniformly in its own State and also with regard to the other States. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case as fully detailed above, we hold that when the State of Kerala may prohibit a particular kind of lottery from its own State, it can prohibit sale of such lottery from any other State and that would not be unsustainable in the eyes of law nor it could be against law as held by this Court in B.R. Enterprises (supra). 34) We also hold that it is not a case of abdication of legislative power and would not be bereft of any guidelines if the legislation banning lotteries was applied uniformly. We, on the interpretation of the poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arliament intends the court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction). While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This means that in its application on any date, the language of the Act, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it as current law. * * *" In the comments that follow it is pointed out that an ongoing Act is taken to be always speaking. It is also, further, stated thus: "In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly the interpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act's passing, in law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters. Just as the US Constitution is regarded as 'a living Constitution', so an ongoing British Act is regarded as 'a living Act'. That today's construction involves the supposition that Parliament was catering long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment has to prohibit any lottery organized, conducted or promoted by every other State, it has to prohibit the sale of its own lottery also. Meaning thereby, if a paper lottery is being prohibited by a particular State then that paper lottery has to be prohibited as a whole. Likewise, if online or internet lottery is to be prohibited by a State then that online lottery or internet lottery of all States including that State also has to be prohibited. Viewed from this angle, we are of the considered opinion that State of Kerala was well within its rights to prohibit the sale of online or internet lotteries in its State and there is no fault in it. It is well within the powers conferred on it under Section 5 of the Act. A State Government can organize, conduct or promote a lottery subject to conditions mentioned in Section 4 and if there is any violation of the conditions mentioned in Section 4, it would be always open to the State Government to prohibit such lottery and that would be within the legislative power vested with the State under Section 5 of the Act as in that case the State would be only complying with the provisions of the Act made by the Parliament. The learned Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
