Skip to main content

Betting and gambling

 Betting and Gambling

In recent years, there has been much dispute about whether internet gambling is a game of skill or a game of chance. A number of concerned governments, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, have passed laws prohibiting Rummy and other games based completely on chance.

It goes without saying that laws will be challenged, and this is exactly what happened. Honourable High Courts determined such rules to be in violation of the Indian Constitution, as well as parent statutes and provisions in some situations, depending on which states issued the rules.

The High Court of Karnataka recently issued a decision that took into account earlier Supreme Court of India decisions as well as the Indian Constitution.

2022, Case No: WP 18703/2021, All India Gaming Federation vs. State of Karnataka

Background Information about the Case

The state change came after a public interest lawsuit was filed in the Karnataka High Court, seeking to outlaw internet gambling. It abolished the difference between skill and chance games, putting skill-based gaming start-ups within its jurisdiction.

The amending legislation took effect on October 5, 2021, and it covers all types of wagering or betting, including tokens valued in terms of money paid before or after their issue. It has outlawed the use of electronic methods and virtual money, as well as electronic financial transfers in conjunction with any type of gambling game.

Facts of the Case: The Karnataka Government has enacted the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which prohibits all forms of wagering, betting, and gambling of any kind in the state.

The state government argued in court that the amendments do not prohibit people from playing online "games of chance" or "games of skill," but they do prohibit people from betting money "on the outcome of an uncertain event" and online platforms from luring gullible people with the promise of unattainable prizes. Following this, various gaming federations came forward and filed a writ petition against the Karnataka State Government.


1.The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 does not fit into Entry 34, List II, or Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution, resulting in a lack of legislative competence.

2. Violation of Article 21 because video games and sports fall under the umbrella of the "right to life and liberty," which has been stretching precedent after precedent, as well as a violation of the doctrine of privacy.

3.Violation of Article 19(1)(a fundamental )'s right to freedom of speech and expression, because playing games and sports of skill is a form of speech and expression, and criminalising it, aside from being an unreasonable restriction, is incompetent under Article 19(1)(a) (2).

4.Incompetent & unreasonable restriction of the fundamental right to profession/business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 301.

Reasons for Judgment

If they principally involve skill, judgement, or knowledge, online gaming activities performed for a stake or not fall under the purview of Entry 34 of the State List, i.e., 'Betting and gambling.' They participate in the nature of commercial operations and, as a result, are protected under Article 19(1). (g). Under Article 19, skill games performed online or offline with or without stakes are subject to reasonable regulations (6). The Amendment Act establishes a broad restriction on playing skill games.

The nature and appropriateness of the limits, as well as the versions and counter-versions, must be considered in light of the Apex Court's standards.

On a prima facie case of a breach of Fundamental Rights, such as those granted under Article 19(1), the onus would shift to the State to establish that the law in issue falls within the legal limitations of the most relevant out of clauses (2) to (3). (6).
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more