IMPORTANT POINT
The plain reading of the aforesaid definition would indicate that it is completely silent on the aspect of “online gambling”, more particularly, “online rummy”, meaning thereby that an individual would get arrested only if he is caught playing rummy/cards outside/in a gambling den in the State of Gujarat, whereas an individual playing “online rummy” cannot be arrested or booked for the offence of gambling.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed in public interest, the writ applicant, a practicing advocate, has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Hold and declare playing on online gambling in Virtual Space/World Web/Cyber Space, through Mobile Applications as well as through Computers more particularly “online rummy” to be bad and illegal as much as it is in violation of the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of The Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887:

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, pass orders to ban/restrict “online gambling”, “online rummy” in the State of Gujarat;

(C) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court.”

2. The case put up by the writ applicant, in public interest, may be summarized as under:

2.1 It is pointed out by the writ applicant that the “online gambling” websites/mobile apps (applications) are mushrooming at an alarming level. It is pointed out that several “online gambling” apps are promoted and targeted in the State of Gujarat too. Such gambling platforms are thus engaged in illegal activities, however, the same remains unchecked/uncontrolled owing to certain deficiencies in the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.

2.2 The provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 was enacted for the purpose of the prevention of gambling in the erstwhile State of Bombay. The provisions of the Act, 1887 were adopted and made applicable to the State of Gujarat. Article 246 of the Constitution of India refers to the legislative power between the Union and the State Legislatures and the distribution of such power is to be found in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. “Betting and Gambling” fall within the Entry No. 34 of List II (State List) in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, which would empower the State Legislature to legislate in respect to the subject matter. Each State Legislature is empowered to enact the laws in so far as gambling is concerned.

2.3 It is pointed out to us by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that one would get to see several advertisements of the gambling websites while accessing mobile applications and social media on smart phones. Such advertisements would entice individuals with small amount as credit to start playing rummy promising lakhs of rupees in return. Such incentives lure the people to indulge in gambling and, ultimately, get addicted to the same.

2.4 It is in the aforesaid context that according to the writ applicant, the present legal framework in reference to the gambling should be regulated to include the virtual or online/Cyber space aspect. This, according to the learned counsel, would ensure that the online activities, so far as gambling is concerned, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the law enforcing authority.

2.5 The writ applicant has placed on record ample materials to indicate the growing menace of “online gambling”.

3. Mr. Hasurkar has also brought to our notice many important articles on the subject. One such article at Annexure-G, Page 80/A reveals that the online Rummy is a Rs.2,200/- Crore industry in India, accounting for half of the country's online gaming business. It is further stated that it comes with serious problems. The players tend to get addicted to it, often exhausting themselves and their money. The players tend to game the system by colluding with other players.

4. A lot was argued as regards the issue whether Rummy is a game of skill or not. There need not be any debate on this issue as Rummy is a game of skill as held by the Supreme Court, for the first time, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana & Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 825 and later followed in the case of K.R. Lakshmanan vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1153. However, the moot question is whether what is being played is “Rummy” in its true sense or