Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. 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. Saishriya Havelia A, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. V Keerthana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Himanshu Vij, Adv. Mr. Durga Bose Gandham, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Aditya Prakash, Adv. Mr. L Nidhiram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Chandan Pandey, Adv. Ms. Tanya Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Sankeerth Vittal, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Shishodia, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Garg, Adv.

Key Points: - The judgment analyzes whether "betting and gambling" should be read conjunctively (betting on gambling) or disjunctively (betting or gambling) for State regulation. (!) (!) (!) - It discusses that games of skill played with stakes historically fall outside Entry 34 and are protected as trade, business, or expression, raising constitutional validity questions for blanket prohibitions. (!) (!) (!) - It concludes that online gaming with stakes cannot be wholly subsumed under gambling when the underlying activity is predominantly skill-based, and that states may regulate or prohibit such activities under broader public order or other List II entries, subject to proportionality and nexus requirements. (!) (!) (!) - The decision affirms that Tamil Nadu and Karnataka amendments extending bans on online gaming with stakes were ultra vires to Entry 34 but upholds them as intra-vires by interpreting Entry 34 widely and considering public order implications. (!) (!) (!) - It emphasizes the broad and liberal interpretation of Seventh Schedule entries, while cautioning that restrictions must have a proximate nexus to public order and be reasonable. (!) (!) (!) - The Court discusses the "public order" concept, its even tempo, and its overlap with public health and safety in the context of online gaming harms. (!) (!) (!) - It distinguishes between res extra commercium and protected activities under Article 19(1)(g), especially for games of skill versus gambling, in the online context. (!) (!) - It references the need for a balanced, proportionate approach rather than blanket prohibitions for online skill-based gaming with stakes. (!) (!) (!) - It acknowledges empirical and societal harms evidence (addiction, suicides, financial distress) as considerations for regulatory action, within the public order framework. (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that the Parliament’s Union-listed powers (e.g., Entry 31, 42, 97) may govern online gaming Regulation at a central level, to avoid regulatory chaos. (!) (!) - The judgment ultimately allows the appeals, declaring certain Part II amendments intra-vires, but the nuanced discussion indicates ongoing interpretation of scope for skill-based gaming. (!) (!)

How to interpret the conjunction in "betting and gambling" under Entry 34 List II: does it allow regulation of games of skill played for stakes?

What is the scope of State legislative competence to regulate online gaming with stakes under Entry 34 List II versus other entries like public order, police, or public health?

What constitutes a valid and proportionate restriction under Article 19(1)(g) when regulating online gaming and betting with stakes?