States Can Ban Betting on Skill Games Online, Supreme Court Rules, Reversing High Court Orders
A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan holds that Entry 34 List II covers betting on games of skill, restoring Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming bans.
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 set aside judgments of the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka that had struck down State legislation banning online betting and gambling, including on games of skill such as rummy and poker. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the word “betting” in Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not confined to betting on games of chance and that States are competent to legislate on betting on games of skill as well. The Court declared Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Schedule and challenged provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022/23, and Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 to be intra vires the Constitution. The ruling directly affects online gaming companies operating rummy, poker, and fantasy sports platforms across India.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (“the 2021 TN Amendment Act”) to amend the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930. The amendment introduced Section 3-A, which prohibited wagering or betting in cyberspace on rummy, poker, or any other game, and amended Section 11 to remove the existing carve-out that had protected games of mere skill from the Act's penal provisions. The amended definition of “gaming” extended to any game involving wagering or betting in person or in cyberspace, including through electronic transfer of funds.
Online gaming companies challenged the 2021 TN Amendment Act before the Madras High Court. On 3 August 2021, the High Court struck down Part II of the Act as ultra vires, holding that “betting” under Entry 34 List II cannot be divorced from “gambling” and that the two words must be read conjunctively. The High Court also held that the State had failed the proportionality test by imposing a blanket ban on games of skill played with stakes, and that the doctrine of severability could not save the amendments.
Subsequently, Tamil Nadu enacted the TN Online Gambling Act 2022/23. The Madras High Court, by a judgment dated 9 November 2023, struck down the Schedule to that Act — which included poker and rummy as prohibited games of chance — and read down Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) to exclude rummy and poker from “online games of chance”.
In Karnataka, the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 amended the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 to bring online gaming platforms within the definition of “common gaming houses”, extend the definition of “gaming” to cover all forms of wagering or betting including on games of skill, and remove the earlier protection for wagering on games of skill under Section 176. The High Court of Karnataka, by judgment dated 14 February 2022, struck down Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act as ultra vires, issued a writ of mandamus restraining the State from interfering with online gaming businesses, and held that the State had failed to justify the measure and had not conducted any scientific or empirical study on the ill-effects of online gaming.
Both States appealed to the Supreme Court. Civil Appeal Nos. 6124–6131 of 2023 arose from the Madras High Court's 2021 judgment; Civil Appeal Nos. 8275–8279 of 2026 arose from the Madras High Court's 2023 judgment; and Civil Appeal Nos. 6132–6144 of 2023 arose from the Karnataka High Court's judgment. All appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.
The Core Constitutional Question: What Does Entry 34 Cover?
The central issue was whether Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule — which reads “betting and gambling” — confers on State Legislatures the power to regulate or prohibit betting on games of skill, or whether that power is confined to betting on games of chance.
The gaming companies argued that “betting and gambling” is a composite expression in which “betting” takes colour from “gambling”, and that gambling, by settled judicial understanding, involves games of chance. They relied on State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (RMDC-I), R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (RMDC-II), and Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu to contend that games of substantial skill fall outside Entry 34 and are protected as legitimate business under Article 19(1)(g). They submitted that the High Courts had correctly applied six decades of binding precedent.
The States argued that the High Courts had given Entry 34 an impermissibly narrow reading. Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tamil Nadu, submitted that the word “and” in Entry 34 does not require both elements to be present simultaneously, and that “betting” is a distinct head of legislative competence. He argued that RMDC-I, RMDC-II, and K.R. Lakshmanan did not address the scope of the word “betting” as it appears in Entry 34, and that the High Courts had misread those decisions.
What the Court Held on Entry 34 and Legislative Competence
The Court agreed with the States. It held that the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka had committed an egregious error in giving a very narrow interpretation to Entry 34 of List II, and that both courts had failed to take into account the power intended to be bestowed upon State Legislatures by the framers of the Constitution.
On the scope of RMDC-I and RMDC-II, the Court found that there was no occasion in those decisions to consider the scope of the term “betting” as it appears in the expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34, or the nature of the conjunction “and” joining the two words. Those decisions therefore did not foreclose the question.
On K.R. Lakshmanan, the Court held that the scope of “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 was not the subject matter of determination in that case. The issue there was whether horse racing would be entitled to the protection of the exception that the State Legislature had itself carved out for games of “mere skill” under Section 49 of the 1963 Police Act and Section 11 of the 1930 Gaming Act. The Court held that K.R. Lakshmanan has no application to cases where the State Legislature, in its wisdom, has deemed it appropriate to regulate games where monetary stakes are involved without affording any special protection to games of mere skill.
The Court held that the finding in the impugned judgments — that “betting and gambling” ought to be interpreted as “betting on gambling” — is a clear constitutional aberration amounting to rewriting the constitutional text, which courts are not legally entitled to do.
The Court further held that while games of skill may not be covered by the expression “gambling”, it is not correct to say that “betting” on games of skill would be outside the competence of the State Legislature. A natural corollary of RMDC-II is that if games of substantial skill are conducted in a manner that poses a severe threat to the State or causes harm to the public, the State will not be powerless to regulate such games of substantial skill as well.
On the Skill-Chance Distinction and Article 19
The gaming companies contended that games of skill are protected under Article 19(1)(g) as legitimate business activity and that the impugned laws failed the proportionality test. The Court rejected this line of argument.
The Court held that when the element of betting and gambling enters the picture, the nature of the game ceases to be of relevance. The common aspect of addiction and the desire to gain more looms large wherever staking money on an uncertain event is involved. The Court held that activities encompassed under “betting and gambling” are in the nature of res extra commercium, and that no one can claim a fundamental right in operating an activity which is extra commercium. Accordingly, the occasion for testing the impugned legislations on proportionality does not arise.
The Court held that games of skill would be protected by the constitutional guarantee under Article 19, but betting or wagering on any game — be it a game of skill — would not be entitled to receive any such protection, unless the Legislature creates an exception in favour of such betting on games of skill. The protection afforded to games of skill under Entry 34 cannot be construed as protection to betting on games of skill, which essentially becomes a gambling enterprise.
The Court also rejected the argument that the phrase “gaming” is nomen juris fixed by judicial interpretation to require an element of chance. It held that “gaming” is a statutory definition that can be altered according to the will of the Legislature and is fluid and fluctuating across States and different legislations.
On Public Order and Public Health as Additional Grounds
The Court also addressed the States' alternative argument that the impugned legislations are supportable under Entry 1 (public order) and Entry 6 (public health) of List II.
The Court found that online money gaming has a definite impact on the public in terms of addiction, monetary losses, and resultant widespread suicides. It held that online money gaming has been disturbing the tranquility of the public by making betting and gambling more normalised and accessible, and that public tranquility is thereby breached. Consequently, the States would have competence to invoke public order to curb the mischief and restore public tranquility.
The Court noted that the addiction and depression stemming from online money gaming and the frequent suicides reported indicate a widespread public health issue. It also noted that the Tamil Nadu State Legislature had relied on the report of the Justice Chandru committee, which contained empirical findings related to the widespread harms of betting linked with online gaming, and that the legislations were therefore supported by empirical data.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2021 TN Amendment Act had recorded that playing games like rummy and poker using computers or mobile phones for money had developed manifold, that innocent people had been cheated, and that incidents of suicide had been reported. The Court accepted this factual basis as sufficient to support the legislative exercise.
On the Karnataka Amendments
The Court applied the same reasoning to the 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act. It found that the Karnataka Legislative Assembly had sought to curb the menace of online betting and gambling by amending the 1963 Police Act to bring online gaming platforms within the definition of common gaming houses, extend the definition of gaming to cover wagering or betting on games of skill, and make offences under Section 78 cognizable and non-bailable under Section 128A.
The Court held that there is a proximate relation between the Acts and the mischief they seek to curb, and that public order can be invoked to satisfy the competence of the States to enact the impugned legislations. The States were held to have exercised their legislative power appropriately to counter the growing menace of online betting and gambling.
Order
The Court allowed all appeals preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka. The impugned judgments of the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Karnataka were set aside.
Part II of the 2021 TN Amendment Act, Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) and the Schedule to the TN Online Gambling Act 2022/23, and Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act were declared intra vires the Constitution.
Civil Appeal No. 6144 of 2023 was also disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs was made.