State Stands Ground, Tells Karnataka High Court Petitioners Have Failed to Show Cause to Challenge Online Gaming Ban  

Karnataka HC
  • Profile picture
  • Namita Ghosh November 24, 2021
  • 2 Minutes Read

On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court held the third hearing for the slew of petitions filed by various stakeholders from the gaming stakeholders challenging the government’s new law banning online gaming. The petitioners and the state continued their arguments before the special bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S. Dixit.

The state government held firm ground on its arguments for introducing new legislation against online gaming for stakes. Advocate-General (AG) Prabhulinga Navadgi told the bench that there are over 5,000-6,000 online games, and the petitioners have failed to show cause to challenge the validity of the new legislation. He said – “If anybody risks their money by soliciting or betting on an unknown result of an event, either in money or otherwise amounts to wagering and betting,” underlining the government had not banned games of skill, and gave cricket as an example.

The bench also heard submissions made by counsels representing several petitioners, making it clear the hearing was only to decide if an interim relief was warranted in these interlocutory applications. The bench dismissed the petitioner`s argument that Nagaland and West Bengal have enacted laws that permitted real-money gaming.

The court listed the next date for hearing on November 30.

 

Submissions Made on November 23

The counsel for PokerSaint stated – “My client here has only two games- rummy and poker. There is legislative recognition that poker is a game of skill. The law commission has gone extensively into the entire landscape of online gaming.” The counsel referred to the 276th law commission report.

When the counsel tried to get further into what amount`s as games of chance, the bench said. “We just have to see what prima facie case is made out in your favor. For that show us, in the game of poker, what skill is involved?”

The counsel replied poker is a game one can take up professionally, like tennis. In a game of chance, players cannot improve since the outcome is based on luck. However, in poker, the player’s skill gets enhanced with practice and experience. The counsel referred to the book Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman. “If I’m restrained from playing the game online, my profession is being interfered with.”

Justice Dixit interrupted, asking for the author’s credentials, and the counsel responded by stating it to be one of the foremost books available on the subject.

The counsel also referred to the gaming laws of Nagaland and West Bengal. The bench asked why they should refer to states functioning on the federal structure to decide the constitutional validity of the present law. “Confine it to relevant things.”

The counsel referred to the recent MoU between Mobile Premier League (MPL) and Telangana to underline how the gaming ban has resulted in a loss of jobs in the state. On this, Justice Dixit responded Telangana has already banned these games.

The counsel re-iterated how games of skill and chance are two different classes, and clubbing them is arbitrary and unreasonable.

 

State Opposes Stay on Online Gaming Ban

The Karnataka Advocate-General (AG) Prabhulinga Navadgi defended the state government’s decision to ban online gaming. Referring to the PIL filed in the court last November demanding the same, he said that the petitioners have failed to show cause to challenge the validity of new legislation since they were not even charged under the new law. The AG said any activity becomes wagering or betting if you place stakes on an event’s unknown result.

When the bench said that every game has an element of an unknown result, the AG responded, “We are concerned with an organized syndicate collecting bets on an unknown event. That is what the Supreme Court says. We have not in any way banned games of skill. A classic example is Cricket itself.”

He said that the Chief Secretary had filed an affidavit in July this year, stating the state’s intention to enforce legislation for this.

The AG opposed the petitioners’ interpretation of section 78 that criminalizes online gaming. Pointing out that there are over 5000-6000 games and its impossible for a writ court to give a certificate if everyone comes – “In the context, of Section 78, the Petitions are very misconceived. None of the Petitioners are charged under 78.

Opposing the AG statement, Senior Counsel CA Sundaram said, “AG is saying even game of skill is banned.

On this, the AG replied – “I am saying you must come under section 78.”

The bench concluded the hearing for the day, and on AG’s request to continue the arguments, the court listed the matter for November 30.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Top Online Poker Rooms

Top
PokerGuru