In State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Others (and companion appeals including State of Karnataka v. All India Gaming Federation & Others) [Civil Appeal Nos. 6124-6131 of 2023, decided on May 29, 2026], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a landmark constitutional batch determining the legislative competence of States to regulate or prohibit online gaming and fantasy sports involving monetary stakes. The appeals were preferred by the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka against separate judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, which had struck down amendments to their respective gaming and police laws (the 2021 TN Amendment Act, the 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act, and the TN Online Gambling Act 2022/23). The High Courts had concurrently held that the legislative field under Entry 34 of List II (“Betting and gambling”) is strictly confined to games of chance, meaning that games of substantial skill (such as Rummy and Poker) fall outside State competence and are protected as legitimate trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the High Court judgments and upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned state legislations. The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that the High Courts adopted an impermissibly restrictive construction of Entry 34 of List II. Integrating a rigorous review of the Constituent Assembly Debates, the Court established that the Constitution-makers intentionally selected wide terms to enable States to curb the social, economic, and psychological harms of wagering, regardless of whether the underlying game is anchored in chance or skill. Furthermore, the Court expanded the contours of the state’s regulatory power, determining that the legislative authority to curb digital gambling addiction and related financial distress is concurrently rooted in Entry 1 (“Public order”), Entry 6 (“Public health”), and Entry 33 (“Sports, entertainments and amusements”) of List II.
1. Factual Matrix and Statutory Frameworks
A. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Matrix
- The 2021 Amendment Act: The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, to modify the parent 1930 Gaming Act. It sought to tackle the growing menace of virtual gambling houses and online betting. The amendment expanded the definition of “gaming” under Section 3(b) to explicitly encompass wagering or betting in cyberspace using electronic transfers. It introduced Section 3-A, criminalizing any online betting on Rummy, Poker, or other games with up to two years’ imprisonment. Crucially, it amended Section 11 to remove the long-standing statutory exemption for “games of mere skill,” subjecting them to penal provisions if played for stakes.
- The Madras High Court Round I (Junglee Games): On August 3, 2021, the Madras High Court struck down Part II of the 2021 Act. It held that the terms “betting” and “gambling” under Entry 34 List II must be read conjunctively, confining State power solely to betting on games of chance. It ruled that the blanket ban failed the proportionality test by completely negating human skill.
- The 2022/23 Online Gambling Act & Round II: In response, Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022/2023. On November 9, 2023, the Madras High Court struck down the Act’s Schedule (which listed Rummy and Poker as prohibited games of chance) and read down Sections 2(i) and 2(1)(iv) to protect online skill games.
B. The Karnataka Legislative Matrix
- The 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act: The State of Karnataka amended the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, via Act No. 28 of 2021. It expanded Section 2(7) (“gaming”) to include online formats where funds or virtual currencies are risked on an unknown outcome, explicitly inserting an explanation clause that applied to “a game of skill”. Section 2(11) (“instruments of gaming”) and Section 2(13) (“place”) were widened to cover cyberspace, mobile apps, and virtual platforms, effectively bringing online gaming companies under the definition of “common gaming houses”. Section 78(1)(a)(vi)-(vii) criminalized any act of risking money on the unknown result of an event, including games of skill. Section 176 was amended to strip the protection previously granted to wagering on games of skill.
- The Karnataka High Court Ruling (AIGF): On February 14, 2022, the Karnataka High Court allowed the gaming companies’ writ petitions. It struck down Sections 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the Amendment Act. The High Court ruled that anything depending predominantly on skill cannot be termed gambling, and that games of skill do not lose their constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g) merely by transitioning to an online platform.
2. Core Legal Issues Formulated
The Apex Court formulated several pivotal constitutional and administrative issues, including:
- Whether the conjunction “and” in “betting and gambling” (Entry 34, List II) must be read conjunctively, restricting State competence to betting on games of chance.
- Whether the state legislations ran counter to the settled Supreme Court jurisprudence in the RMDC-I, RMDC-II, and R. Lakshmanan decisions.
- Whether the online mode transforms games of skill into games of chance, and whether a blanket ban violates the principle of proportionality under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g).
- Whether the State Legislature derives auxiliary competence from other entries such as “public order” (Entry 1), “public health” (Entry 6), and “amusements” (Entry 33).
3. Submissions of the Parties
A. Arguments Canvassed by the States (Tamil Nadu & Karnataka)
- The Digitization Menace: The States contended that rapid digitization has democratized access to virtual gambling spaces, morphing every mobile phone into a potential virtual gambling house. This architectural transformation has triggered severe “gaming disorders” (recognized by the WHO), widespread consumer debt, family distress, and a tragic spike in suicides.
- Broad Reading of Entries: The states argued that Entries in the Seventh Schedule must receive the widest possible interpretation. Entry 34 uses “betting and gambling” disjunctively in practice. “Betting” covers any staking of money on an uncertain outcome, regardless of the underlying presence of skill. Even if a game involves skill for the player, a third-party bettor is merely guessing an outcome, which falls under Entry 34.
- Alternative State Entry Anchors: Alternatively, the laws are valid under Entry 1 (“Public order”) to prevent digitally mediated social unrest; Entry 6 (“Public health”) to curb psychological harms and addictive predatory designs; and Entry 33 (“Sports, entertainments and amusements”) as modern virtual entertainment.
B. Arguments Canvassed by the Online Gaming Companies
- Protection under Article 19(1)(g): The respondents (represented by senior counsels including Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, and Mr. Sajan Poovayya) argued that games of predominant skill (such as Rummy, Poker, and Fantasy Sports) are recognized commercial activities. They are protected under Article 19(1)(g) and cannot be declared res extra commercium or equated with gambling.
- The Stare Decisis Barrier: Stare decisis binds the States to the RMDC and R. Lakshmanan trilogy, which settled that “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 excludes competitions where success depends on a substantial degree of skill. Staking money or charging a standard platform fee does not change a skill game into gambling.
- Union Domain and Proportionality: The subject matter occupies cyberspace, meaning it falls exclusively within the Parliament’s domain under List I Entry 31 (“communications”), Entry 42 (“inter-State commerce”), and Entry 97 (residuary powers), governed by the Central IT Rules. A total ban fails the least-intrusive-measure test of proportionality when calibrated central regulations exist.
4. Constitutional Analysis & Core Reasoning of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court systematically dismantled the reasoning of the High Courts, analyzing the constitutional texts across several foundational layers:
A. Unearthing the True Intent of the Constituent Assembly
To resolve the semantic debate over the conjunction “and” in Entry 34 (“Betting and gambling”), the Supreme Court pierced the text by examining the Constituent Assembly Debates from September 2, 1949.
- The historical record revealed that when the assembly debated moving Entry 44 (now Entry 33 List II) to include “entertainments and amusements,” Member H.V. Kamath objected, citing a rumor that the Bombay Government was attempting to ban the “harmless game” of Rummy.
- In response, Member T.T. Krishnamachari clarified that the state’s intervention against Rummy was driven by the massive monetary stakes involved. He explicitly noted that when a game of skill is played for exceptionally high stakes, it takes the form of gambling, and it was precisely for that reason that powers were provided under Entry 45 (now Entry 34) to allow States to regulate or prohibit it.
- Based on this, the Supreme Court ruled that the founding fathers explicitly intended for States to have the power to regulate or prohibit even recognized games of skill when played with stakes. Reading “and” conjunctively to strip State power over skill-based wagering would directly defeat the clear intention of the Constitution-makers.
[ CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES ] (Sept. 2, 1949) │ ┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [ KAMATH’S OBJECTION ] [ KRISHNAMACHARI’S CLARIFICATION ] • Expressed alarm that the State • Explained that the intervention was sought to ban a “harmless game” triggered by high monetary stakes. like Rummy. • Confirmed that Entry 45 (now Entry 34) purposely empowers States to regulate/prohibit skill games when played for stakes.
B. Clarifying the Trilogy of Precedents (RMDC and K.R. Lakshmanan)
The Court held that both High Courts fundamentally misapplied the rulings in RMDC-I, RMDC-II, and K.R. Lakshmanan.
- The RMDC cases dealt with the interpretation of prize competitions and judicial definitions of gambling for tax purposes, but they did not define or limit the baseline boundary of the state’s legislative competence under Entry 34.
- Similarly, R. Lakshmanan declared horse-racing to be a game of predominant skill, but it did not lay down a constitutional embargo preventing a State Legislature from regulating the act of betting on that skill. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Courts’ conclusions—asserting that Entry 34 completely excludes any authority over skill-based betting—were per incuriam.
C. Plurality of Competence and the “Public Order” Matrix
The Court affirmed that Entry 34 is not the lone source of authority for the states. Legislative entries must receive a broad and liberal interpretation, and an overlap does not destroy competence if the statute’s true character falls within State List limits. The Court found that the states possess valid concurrent competence through several other constitutional anchors:
- Public Order (Entry 1, List II): Expanding the contours of “public order,” the Court ruled that in the internet age, the concept transcends basic physical street violence. Predatory online gaming designs that trigger widespread financial ruin, domestic despair, and subsequent suicides severely disrupt the “even tempo of the life of the community,” satisfying the potentiality test for public order intervention.
- Public Health (Entry 6, List II): Articles 39(f) and 47 cast a constitutional duty on the State to protect youth from exploitation and improve public health. The Court drew an analogy to the State’s power to ban intoxicating liquors, ruling that the power to protect citizens from the psychological and physiological harms of digital “gaming disorders” falls squarely under public health.
- Sports and Amusements (Entry 33, List II): Because online gaming apps are structured as modern digital entertainment, they fall within the regulatory field of amusements.
D. Proportionality and Non-Arbitrariness Upholdings
The Court rejected the online gaming companies’ arguments that the state interventions were manifestly arbitrary or disproportionate under Articles 14 and 19.
- No Manifest Arbitrariness: The state laws do not suffer from a lack of a determining principle. The states executed their legislative choices based on empirical reports (such as the Justice Chandru Committee report in Tamil Nadu) documenting real-world harms.
- The Proportionality Balance: While games of skill enjoy a baseline commercial character, no fundamental right is absolute. Where a digital commercial format generates widespread economic dependency, predatory fraud, and systemic public harm, a complete ban on the staking element satisfies the proportionality test. The state’s compelling public interest in protecting its citizens outweighs the business interests of online intermediaries.
5. Conclusion and Final Decretal Order
- Appeals Allowed: The Supreme Court allowed all the captioned appeals filed by the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
- High Court Rulings Set Aside: The impugned judgments of the High Court of Madras (dated August 3, 2021, and November 9, 2023) and the High Court of Karnataka (dated February 14, 2022) are officially set aside and overturned.
- Statutes Validated: Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Schedule and core provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022/2023, and the Karnataka Act No. 28 of 2021 are declared intra vires the Constitution and fully enforceable.
- Mandamus Discharged: The writs of mandamus restraining the state authorities from interfering with online gaming businesses are discharged. The States retain full sovereign competence to regulate, penalize, or prohibit online wagering and betting operations within their borders.
- Costs: Ordered with no order as to costs.
2026 INSC 594
State of Tamil Nadu And Others V. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. And Others (D.O.J. 27.05.2026)
