Online gambling law cannot convert skill-based games into chance without material showing skill has been displaced.

The State may prohibit online gambling under its betting and gambling power, but it cannot constitutionally reclassify or prohibit games of skill as gambling without material showing that the online format has removed the predominance of skill. The Court held that rummy and poker remain games of skill on the material before it, and their inclusion in the Schedule as online games of chance was unsustainable. The definitional and prohibitory provisions were therefore read down to apply only to games of chance, while the regulatory power to impose reasonable restrictions and registration requirements was preserved. The Schedule entries for rummy and poker were set aside, and the writ petitions succeeded only in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Legislature had competence to enact a law prohibiting online gambling while also regulating online games of skill. (ii) Whether the inclusion of rummy and poker in the Schedule as online games of chance, and the breadth of the definitional and prohibitory provisions, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the State Legislature had competence to enact a law prohibiting online gambling while also regulating online games of skill.

Analysis: The legislative field under Entry 34 of List II extends to betting and gambling, which is confined to games of chance. Games in which skill predominates fall outside that field. The Court reiterated that rummy and poker, as previously recognised, are games of skill, and that online play by itself does not justify their reclassification as games of chance in the absence of material showing that the online format destroys the skill element. The State may regulate online games of skill under its public order and public health concerns, and may prohibit online gambling, but it cannot prohibit or treat as gambling what remains a game of skill.

Conclusion: The State has competence to prohibit online gambling, but not to prohibit or reclassify games of skill such as rummy and poker as gambling.

Issue (ii): Whether the inclusion of rummy and poker in the Schedule as online games of chance, and the breadth of the definitional and prohibitory provisions, were sustainable.

Analysis: The Schedule's inclusion of rummy and poker as games of chance was not supported by material showing bots, tampering, or any other feature that would convert those games into games of chance. The Court therefore read down the definition of online gambling and the related card-game clause so that they apply only to games of chance and exclude games of skill. The regulatory power under the Act was preserved, including the power to impose reasonable restrictions and registration requirements, while the Schedule identifying rummy and poker as chance games was set aside.

Conclusion: The Schedule including rummy and poker was set aside, and the impugned provisions were read down to exclude games of skill.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only in part. The Act was upheld in principle to the extent of regulating and prohibiting online gambling, but it was limited by excluding games of skill from its sweep and by removing rummy and poker from the Schedule.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law under the betting and gambling entry may prohibit online games of chance and regulate online games of skill, but it cannot constitutionally convert a game of skill into gambling without substantive material showing that the online format has removed the predominance of skill.

---