SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 507

DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR
State of Meghalaya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. General, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mrs. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shankar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkataramani, AG for India Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Ms. Vinjayalakshmi Venkataramani, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Mr. Kv Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Baskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv. Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Devajit Saikia, (AG Assam), Sr. Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Rukmini Barua, Adv. Ms. Padmini Barua, Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mr. Akshay Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. M/s. Dr. R.R. Deshpande And Associates, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Gulam Rabbani, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Riya Soni, Adv. Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Adv. Ms. Saket Gautam, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv. Mr. S S Bandyopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V T, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vipul Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Uma Bhuvaneshwari. C, Adv. Mr. Abbas, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of these proceedings, registered as Original Suit No. 1 of 2021, the State of Meghalaya seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [‘the Act of 1998’], and Rule 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 [‘the Rules of 2010’], are ultra vires and unconstitutional, and for other reliefs.

1.1. The reliefs claimed in the plaint read as under: -

    “The plaintiff, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree granting following relief:

    a) Declare and hold Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Act No. 17 of 1998) and the Rules framed thereunder as being ultra-vires to the Constitution of India and unconstitutional; and

    b) Declare and hold Section 6 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 as being ultra-vires to the Constitution of India and unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14, to the extent it empowers the Central Government to pass orders prohibiting a lottery organized in contravention of provisions of Sections 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; and

    c)

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top