Online gaming companies appeared before the Madras High Court to challenge the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation Of Online Games Act 2022, arguing that there is a clear distinction between games of skill and games of chance. The companies contended that the state cannot abolish this distinction through a deeming function and that the act attempts to do something legally impermissible.
Senior Advocate, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, representing one of the online rummy companies, emphasized that games of skill are inherently different from games of chance and have been recognized as such for over a century. He argued that even if a game of skill involves an element of chance, the test of predominance should be applied to determine its nature. Singhvi used examples of games like bridge and chess, where chance exists in the distribution of cards but does not change the predominant skill-based nature of the games.
Singhvi further asserted that playing a game of skill with stakes does not transform it into gambling. He maintained that the state has the power to make laws concerning chance but not skill, and it cannot deem something that cannot be deemed. He also highlighted that online games offer better security measures and can be monitored by anyone, suggesting that instead of banning the games, they should be regulated.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that suicides by individuals cannot be attributed to online games and banning them on such grounds is unjustified. He referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that rummy is a game of skill, making the state's enactment of a ban on online rummy inconsistent with the court's decision.
Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram, representing the Gaming Federation, raised concerns about the vague definitions provided in the act, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement. He argued that penal consequences cannot be based on subjective satisfaction and that distinguishing between online and offline skill-based games violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court adjourned the hearing to July 19 for further arguments. Online gaming companies seek to invalidate the ban, asserting that it is arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
