PIL Filed in Karnataka High Court Seeking Ban on Online Gambling, Betting.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A PIL has been filed in Karnataka High Court seeking a complete ban on online gambling, betting till appropriate regulations are framed.
The Karnataka High Court recently sought the response of the State government in a public interest litigation (PIL).
A division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Abhay Shreenivas Oka and Justice Vishwajit Shetty issued notice to the State Government in the plea.
It is submitted that pre-independence statutes prohibited any game based on chance or probability except lotteries.
With the enforcement of the Constitution of India came Entry 34 of List-II of the seventh schedule of the Constitution, which empowers the State Governments to legislate on matters concerning gambling and betting. Since there is no central uniform legislation on the subject, the States under entry 34 of List-II of the seventh schedule of the Constitution have enacted legislation for prevention of gambling. The Public Gambling Act, 1867 (‘PG Act’) has been adopted by several states and have enacted their own legislation to regulate gaming / gambling activities within its territory (“Gambling Legislations” or “Gaming Legislations”).
However, the State of Karnataka has neither enacted any law on betting or gambling nor adopted and applied any central legislation.
The PIL, filed by one D Sharada through Advocate Shridhar Prabhu has submitted that though there is a dire need for regulation online gambling and online games, the government has not created any regulatory regime or regulations for the same.
The PIL further contends that State of Karnataka, from the very beginning neither enacted nor adopted any anti-gambling legislation. However, the State, by way of enactment of Karnataka State Police Act, 1963 (“KP Act” has specifically defined and dedicated Chapter 7 for prevention of Gaming. Section 2 is definition clause defining following terms.
Sub Section (3) “common gaming-house” means a building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, or keeping such building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, or of the person using such building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, whether he has a right to use the same or not, such profit or gain being either by way of a charge for the use of the instruments of gaming or of the building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, or otherwise howsoever or as subscription or other payment for the use of facilities along with the use of the instruments of gaming or of the building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place for purposes of gaming;
Sub Section (7) “gaming” does not include a lottery but includes all forms of wagering or betting in connection with any game of chance, except wagering or betting on a horse-race 1 [run on any race course within or outside the State]1 , when such wagering or betting takes place,—
(i) on the day on which such race is run; and
(ii) in an enclosure set apart for the purpose in a race course by the licensee of such race course under the terms of the license issued under section 4 of the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act, 1952 (Mysore Act VIII of 1952); and]
(iv) between any person being present in such enclosure, on the one hand and such licensee or other person licensed by such licensee in terms of the aforesaid license on the other in such manner and by such contrivance as may be permitted by such license
It is further brought in the notice of the Court that however, the State of Karnataka remains blissfully oblivious to regulating all forms of betting, wagering etc. in cyber space using computers or any communication device or resource. The State cannot shut itself to the precarious situation. Great injustice will be caused in case the illegal and unregulated activities are not halted by this Hon’ble Court. The loss so caused cannot be compensated with money. Per contra, no hardship or loss will be caused to the Respondents or others. Balance of convenience is in favors of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Citing the example of the game, rummy, the plea submits that when played in offline mode, the same is game of skill but it may not hold true for online mode.
It is contended that the Writ Courts have amble power to direct the State to regulate and monitor an activity impacting the social and economic health of the society, particularly in the pandemic situation.
It is also informed to the court that a representation was submitted to the State in this regard urging the government to ban all forms of online betting and gambling on September,12, 2020.However, the petitioner received no response to the same prompting her to knock the doors of the Court.
The matter will be heard next on January 12,2021