2026 Supreme(SC) 641

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Appellants
Versus
Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6124-6131 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 6132-6143, 6144 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 8275-8279 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 1588-1592 of 2024]
Decided On : 27-05-2026

The legislative field of ‘betting and gambling’ under the state list is sufficiently broad to encompass any activity where money is staked on an unknown outcome, irrespective of whether the underlying game involves skill, and states can validly regulate or prohibit such activities in the interest of public order.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Seventh Schedule - List II - Entries 1 and 34 - Betting and Gambling - Public Order - Legislative competence - Challenge to legislations prohibiting online betting and gaming involving money or stakes - High Courts had held that betting on games of skill does not fall within legislative power as betting must be tied to gambling on chance - Held, expression ‘betting and gambling’ is a broad constitutional field - Staking money on the unknown result of an event, even if the underlying activity is a game of skill, constitutes ‘betting’ within the meaning of the entry - The State is empowered to regulate or prohibit such activities when they pose a threat to public order, public health, or lead to social and economic disruption. (Paras 214, 217, 269, 273 and 376)

(B) Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(g) - Trade or business - Online gaming involving money stakes - Not res commercium - No fundamental right to trade in betting or gambling activities - States have the freedom to treat online gaming involving stakes as betting, given the societal harms such as addiction and financial ruin - Legislative policy choices regarding regulation or prohibition of such activities are entitled to judicial deference. (Paras 314, 319 and 320)

Facts of the case:
The appeals originated from challenges to various state-level amendments to gambling and police laws enacted to curb online wagering and betting. The petitioners, including operators of online skill-based gaming platforms, challenged these laws, arguing that state legislative competence under the Entry concerning ‘betting and gambling’ is limited to games of chance and that their activities are protected as business under the Article for fundamental rights. The lower courts struck down the amendments, accepting the argument that games of skill with stakes do not qualify as gambling.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the constitutional entries must receive a broad and liberal interpretation and that the expression ‘betting and gambling’ allows States to regulate activities where money is staked on uncertain outcomes. The Court concluded that the online aspect of these games and the associated social harms, including addiction and financial distress among the population, provide a sufficient rational nexus for regulation under the ‘public order’ entry.

Issues: The main issues were whether the legislative competence of the State is confined to betting on games of chance, whether it is constitutional to prohibit online games involving stakes, and whether such regulation violates fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Betting and gambling involve the fundamental element of staking money on unknown outcomes; once stakes are introduced, the nature of the game as one of skill or chance becomes immaterial for the purpose of legislative capacity. State governments are empowered to intervene as parens patriae to protect public welfare, especially given the empirical risks linked to online betting, and such measures do not violate the Constitution if they are rationally related to protecting the public.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned legislations held intra-vires.