JUDGMENT :

Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.

1. The tickling tone for this judgment can be set by what Lord Denning had humoured in Tote Investors Ltd. vs. Smoker (1968) 1 QB 509:

"..The defendant has in the past occasionally had a wager on a horse-race. Today she has been taking part in another game of chance or skill - the game of litigation."

2. All these petitions by the companies and individuals involving substantially similar questions of law and facts seek to lay a challenge to the validity of the Karnataka Act No. 28 of 2021 (hereafter 'Amendment Act') whereby the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 (hereafter 'Principal Act') has been amended; the cumulative effect of these amendments, according to them, is the criminalization of playing or facilitating online games. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned Advocate General have filed their common Statement of Objections and Addl. Statement of Objections resisting the challenge.

II. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION AS TO WHO THE PETITIONERS ARE:

3. Petitioners in W.P. No. 18703/2021 and W.P. No. 19322/2021 are the societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioners in W.P. No. 18729/2021, W.P. No. 18732/2021, W.P. No. 18733/2021, W.P. No. 18738/2021, W.P. No. 18803/2021, W.P. No. 18942/2021, W.P. No. 19241/2021 and W.P. No. 22371/2021 are the companies incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioners in W.P. No. 19271/2021 and W.P. No. 19450/2021 are the individuals. Some of the petitioners in the petitions filed by the companies happen to be Directors. All the petitioners are associated with online gaming in one or the other way. These games are rummy, carom, chess, pool, bridge, cross-word, scrabble and fantasy sports such as cricket, etc.

III. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE BRIEFLY STATED:

4. The challenge to the Amendment Act is structured inter alia on the following grounds:

(i) Lack of legislative competence since the Amendment Act does not fit into Entry 34, List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India vide Chamarbaugwala-I AIR 1957 SC 628, Chamarbaugwala-II AIR 1957 SC 874, K. Satyanarayana vs. State of Andrha Pradesh AIR 1968 SC 825 and K.R. Lakshmanan vs. State Of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226.

(ii) Violation of Article 21 since playing games and sports falls within the umbrella of 'right to life and liberty' that has been stretching precedent by precedent and violation of doctrine of privacy vide K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of Inida (2019) 1 SCC 1.

(iii) Violation of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) since playing games and sports of skill is a facet of speech and expression and that criminalizing apart from amounting to unreasonable restriction, is incompetent under Article 19(2).

(iv) Violation of fundamental right to profession/business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 301 i.e., incompetent and unreasonable restriction vide Chintaman Rao vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950) SCR 759, Mohd. Farooq vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969) 1 SCC 853, game of skill not being a res extra commercium (Chamarbaugwala-II, supra) and embargo being de hors Article 19(6).

(v) Manifest arbitrariness Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 since the Amendment Act fails to recognize the blatant normative difference between a 'game of skill' and a 'game of chance', in gross derogation of Chamarbaugwala Jurisprudence of more than six decades.

(vi) The impugned legislative measure is a result of exces