Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on Tamil Nadu government’s petition challenging Madras HC’s order that struck down the State’s ban on all forms of online gaming. A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath deferred the plea for 10 weeks and asked the parties to file their replies within 4 weeks.
A bench of the then Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had struck down Part II of Tamil Nadu Gaming & Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 which amended the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930, banning playing of games such as rummy and poker on cyberspace by declaring it as unconstitutional.
“There appears to be a little doubt that both rummy and poker are games of skill as they involve considerable memory, ability to follow the cards on the table and constantly adjust to the changing possibilities,” High Court had observed.
The HC had although termed State’s online gaming ban “excessive and disproportionate” but had granted liberty to the State to pass any other legislation, without any lacunae. It had also added that nothing in the judgment would prevent the State from introducing an appropriate legislation that confirms to the Constitutional principles of propriety.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on Tamil Nadu government’s petition challenging Madras HC’s order that struck down the State’s ban on all forms of online gaming.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath deferred the plea for 10 weeks and asked the parties to file their replies within 4 weeks.
A bench of the then Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had struck down Part II of Tamil Nadu Gaming & Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 which amended the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930, banning playing of games such as rummy and poker on cyberspace by declaring it as unconstitutional.
“There appears to be a little doubt that both rummy and poker are games of skill as they involve considerable memory, ability to follow the cards on the table and constantly adjust to the changing possibilities,” High Court had observed.
The HC had although termed State’s online gaming ban “excessive and disproportionate” but had granted liberty to the State to pass any other legislation, without any lacunae. It had also added that nothing in the judgment would prevent the State from introducing an appropriate legislation that confirms to the Constitutional principles of propriety.
