M/S Sbn Gaming Network Private Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 207 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

M/S Sbn Gaming Network Private Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2025

                                               1




         Digitally
                                                                           NAFR
         signed by
         YOGESH
YOGESH   TIWARI
TIWARI   Date:
         2025.05.15
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
         18:00:41
         +0530


                                   WPC No. 2515 of 2025

          M/s SBN Gaming Network Private Limited Farm No. 8-G/F- Kh No.
          258, 260/2 -257/2 and 275, Village Sultanpur, New Delhi India -
          110030 through its Authorised Signatory Saurabh Chopra S/o Shri
          Naveen Chopra aged about 35 Years R/o New Delhi.
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                           versus
          1 - State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary Department of Home
          Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District- Raipur
          Chhattisgarh.
          2 - Inspector General of Police (Technical Service) Chhattisgarh
          State       Shankar   Nagar   Main   Road    Shankar    Nagar    Raipur
          Chhattisgarh- 492001.
                                                                 ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Order-Sheet

09.05.2025 Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kishore Bhaduri,

Senior Advocates assisted by Ms. Suhaan Mukerji, Ms.

Chitralekha Das, Mr. Rishabh Garg, Ms. Sayandeep

Pahari and Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General

assisted by Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for

the State.

Since Mr. Das has put in appearance on behalf of

the respondents, there is no need to issue notice to the

State/respondents.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for

grant of ad-interim relief.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner owns and runs a gaming App

namely "SportsBaazi" as described on its website

https://sportsbaazi.com/. The petitioner offers only skill

based games "Rummy" and it follows all the rules and

regulations to ensure compliance of the same and usage

of the App even requires users not to avoid by its

responsibility while playing with Gaming App. He would

further submit that usage of Gaming App are required to

undergo stringent KYC as such, it is legally binding entity.

The Government of India under the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (in short "IT Act") as well as rules

thereunder called as Information Technology (Intermediary

Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (in

shot "IT Rules") recognized "Online Real Money Games".

It has been contended that the State of Chhattisgarh

exempts games of skill from its anti-gambling laws namely,

the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (in short

"Act, 2022"). It has been further contended that on

05.05.2025, the impugned direction was issued by the

Inspector General of Police (Technocal Service) Nodal

Officer for Chhattisgarh State under Section 79(3)(b) of the

IT Act to all Internet Service Providers (in short "ISPs") and

Telecom Service Providers (in short "TSPs") to

immediately block access to the petitioner's Website under

Section 79(b)(3) of the IT Act as the same is involved in

"Online Gambling" as also is an illegal website and the

same was directed to immediately block access to the

websites within the territory of India. It has been argued

that the gaming App of the petitioner's company is a skill

based gaming App, which plays "Rummy" to its customers,

which is not prohibited under the IT Act as well as IT

Rules. There is a difference between "Game of Skill" and

"Game of Chance". "Game of Skill" means that outcome of

the game is predominantly determined by the knowledge,

training, expertise and experience of the participant

whereas "Game of Chance" means it determined by the

chance and luck, as such, the game which is being played

in the website of the petitioner namely

https://sportsbaazi.com/ is a "Game of Skill" and not a

"Game of Chance", hence, it cannot be prohibited by the

impugned notice.

The petitioner did not receive any such

communication from the respondents to block access

immediately and the impugned direction was passed

without hearing the petitioner as also without giving a

chance to defend itself against these grave and serious

allegations, which was not just with respect to the territory

of Chhattisgarh but for all over India, even though the

services offered by the petitioner are expressly recognised

and governed by Indian law, specifically, the laws enacted

by the Central Government. It has been further argued

that the petitioner has been arbitrarily named in the

impugned direction because the services of the petitioner

have never been found to be illegal by any Court of law or

faced any conviction under anti-gambling laws. It has been

further argued that the Inspector General, Cyber Police,

Headquarter Raipur has not found that any case of online

betting or fraud which has been reported against the

petitioner, as such, the petitioner cannot be prohibited by

the impugned notice as there is no violation of Section

79(3)(b) of the IT Act as also Rule 3(1)(D) of the IT Rules.

Before issuance of notice, the petitioner was not given any

opportunity of hearing and nothing was disclosed as also

without there being any reason, the App of the petitioner

was closed not only in the State of Chhattisgarh but in the

entire Country, for which, the State is not having any

authority.

He lastly submits that the gaming App of the

petitioner incorporates element of mutation and

combination in its game-play, which combined with the

strategic nature of the game, contribute to it being

classified as a "Game of Skill" rather than a "Game of

Chance" and therefore, impugned notice dated 05.05.2025

be directed to be stayed.

Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon

the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matters of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.

Satyanarayana and others, AIR 1968 SC 825, Dr. K.R.

Lakshmanan v. State of T.N. and another, (1996) 2 SCC

226 as well as the judgment rendered by the Madras High

Court in the matter of All India Gaming Federation, Rep.

By its General Secretary and Authorised Signatory,

Sunil Krishnamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu through

Chief Secretary and others, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad

6973 to buttress his submissions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that

since the State authority is not having jurisdiction even

though for grant of interim relief, the petitioner undertakes

that he will block his App https://sportsbaazi.com/ through

"Gio block" in the entire State of Chhattisgarh till final

disposal of this writ petition. However, the petitioner may

be permitted operation of its website for the rest part of the

Country.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate

General submits that the order impugned has rightly been

passed. He further submits that the petitioner was

contravening IT Act and are indulging persons by tempting

them for money, which cannot be said to be a skill game,

but it is a chance game. It has been contended that the

State may be granted time to file reply as the State wishes

to annex some documents along with reply and thereafter,

the matter may be finally heard. It has been further

contended that WP(PIL) No.37/2025 is already pending

consideration before Division Bench of this Court, in which

an order has been passed on 04.04.2025, directing the

State as well as Union of India to file their reply-affidavits,

as such, the instant petition is not maintainable before this

Court. It has been contended that on 06.05.2025, an

affidavit has been filed by the State, in which, a direction

to block access of the petitioners' website has been

sought in all probability and possibility.

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties

and perused the relevant laws.

At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce

the impugned order dated 05.05.2025, which reads as

follows:-

"Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar 492002

Sr.-PHQ/IGP/Technical Service/59/2025, Nava Raipur, Dated 05 May 2025

To,

All Internet and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs)

Subject : Immediate Blocking of Access to Website Links under Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2021.

1. Upon receiving complaints from verified intelligence sources and physical verification Chhattisgarh Police found that several websites links were involved in Online Gambling:

• Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

• Rule 3(1)(D) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

• Under provisions 7, 8 Gambling Act 2022 Chhattisgarh and 79(3)(E) IT Act 2021.

The details of such illegal websites mentioned below:-

1. https://probo.in/

2. https://www.tradexapp.co/Home

3. https://sportsbaazi.com/

2. You are hereby directed to:

• Immediately block access to the above websites/URLs from being accessed within the territory of India, with priority enforcement in the State of Chhattisgarh.

• Submit compliance reports to Chhattisgarh Police within 36 hours of receipt of this notice with a copy to 14C, Ministry of Home Affairs.

This direction is issued in the public interest to prevent exploitation and financial harm to citizens, and to uphoad the provisions of Indian law.

Sd/-

Inspector General of Police (Technical Service), Nodal Officer for Chhattisgarh State for issuing notices to intermediaries under the section 79(3)(b) IT Act, 2000 and rule of the IT (IGDMEC) Rules, 2021 "

Further, it would be relevant to extract Section 79(1)

(b) of the IT Act, which is reproduced before for easy

reference:-

"[79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be

liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if-

(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or

(b) the intermediary does not-

(i) initiate the transmission,

(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and

(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1)

shall not apply if-

(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;

(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expression "third party information" means any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary."

On 06.05.2025, the following order was passed in

WP(PIL) No.37/2025:-

"Heard Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N.Bharat, learned Advocate General, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1 to 4/State and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG assisted by Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Union of India and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

An affidavit has been filed by the learned State counsel which is reproduced here as under:

1. In compliance of the order dated 24/03/2025 passed by this Court, following efforts and actions were /taken by the respondents/State against the extraction of illegal money through online betting and gambling.

2. It is submitted that in Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, an offence

under Section 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 read with Section 420 /34 of the I.P.C. has also been registered under Crime No.685/2023 and during the course of investigation, the Police has found that various online betting apps and websites were run through APK Files and apps in Google and therefore, vide letter dated 07/11/2023 (Annexure A/5) a request was made to suspend all the websites and applications involved in online betting.

3. It has also been submitted that after the enactment of the Act, 2022, the Police has taken continuously action against the erring personnel under the provisions contained in the Act, 2022 and as on February, 2025 total 444 cases of online gambling /Satta have been reported in which 1002 persons have been arrested and in 383 cases are pending before the competent court of law and the police has seized the cash and other

articles amounting to Rs.

2,19,63,430/-.

4. In furtherance of the actions taken for curbing the extraction of illegal money by involving in gambling and Satta and further for preventing the social evil of gambling and online gambling and to prevent the consequential financial trouble on the facilities in the State of Chhattisgarh, the Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh has again written a letter dated 05/05/2025 to All Internet and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) directing them to immediately block the access to website links under Section 79(3) of the Information Technology Act within the territory of India with priority enforcement in the State of Chhattisgarh, with further direction to submit compliance reports to the Police within 36 hours of receipt of the notice with a copy to 14C, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Alongwith the letter, the notification to Internet Service Provider (ISP) for

disabling assess to Unlawful Information has also been supplied and sent. Copy of the letter dated 05/05/2025 alongwith the notification is being filed herewith as Annexure A/1. In the said letter dated 05/05/2025, the details of the websites engaged in illegally extracting the money through online betting and gambling have been mentioned which are (i) https://probo.in/(ii)https://www.tradexa pp.co/Home(iii)htts://sportsbaazi.com/ , with a direction to block the access of the said websites. It is submitted that in all probability and possibility, the access of the aforesaid websites which are the respondent no. 5 and 6 herein, would be blocked by the service provider agency.

5. In addition to the aforesaid websites, on earlier occasions, on 03/04/2025, 04/04/2025, 09/04/2025 and 22/04/2025 the Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh has written letters to All Internet and

Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to block total 154 URL / websites so as to curb the extraction of illegal money through online betting and gambling and also to prevent the social evil of gambling and online gambling and to prevent the consequential financial trouble on the facilities in the State of Chhattisgarh. Copies of the letters dated 03/04/2025, 04/04/2025, 09/04/2025 and 22/04/2025 are filed herewith as Annexure A/2 colly.

7. In addition to 444 cases of online gambling /Satta reported in the earlier affidavit, till March and April, 2025, further 61 cases of online gambling /Satta have been registered in which 141 persons have been arrested and an amount of total Rs.49,98,270/- has been seized. Copy of the details of the action taken by the Police under the Act, 2022 in various districts of State is being filed herewith as Annexure A/3.

8. To curb the tendency of extracting

illegal money through online betting and gambling, all possible action has continuously been taking by the Police against the persons involved in such illegal online betting and gambling so that the very object and purpose behind framing of the Act, 2022 could be achieved. It is further respectfully submitted that the deponent being a law abiding citizen, is a duty bound to adhere to and abide by the orders of the Hon'ble Court."

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/Union of India states that immediate action would be taken on the request made by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, vide its application dated 05.05.2025.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 seeks for and is granted time to file return.

List this case in the month of July 2025."

In the matter of K. Satyanarayana (supra), Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

"12. We are also not satisfied that the protection of Section 14 is not available in this case. The game of Rummy is not a game entirely of chance like the 'three-card' game mentioned in the Madras case to which we were referred. The 'three card' game which goes under different names such as 'flush', 'brag' etc. is a game of pure chance. Rummy, on the other hand, requires certain amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be memorised and the building up of Rummy requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. We cannot, therefore, say that the game of Rummy is a game of entire chance. It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. The chance in Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of bridge. In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out, there is an element of chance, because the distribution of the I cards is not according to any set pattern but is

dependent upon how the cards find their place in the shuffled pack. From this alone it cannot be said that Rummy is a game of chance and there is, no skill involved in it. Of course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house or the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may be brought home. In this case, these elements are missing and therefore we think that the High Court was right in accepting the reference it did."

In the matter of Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan (supra),

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

"20. ......(i) the competitions where success depends on substantial degree of skill are not `gambling' and (ii) despite there being an element of chance if a game is preponderantly a game of skill it would nevertheless be a game of "mere skill". We, therefore, hold that the expression "mere skill"

would mean substantial degree or

preponderance of skill.

33. The expression 'gaming' in the two Acts has to be interpreted in the light of the law laid-down by this Court in the two Chamarbaugwala cases, wherein it has been authoritatively held that a competition which substantially depends on skill is not gambling.

Gaming is the act or practice of gambling on a game of chance. It is staking on chance where chance is the controlling factor. `Gaming' in the two Acts would, therefore, mean wagering or betting on games of chance. It would not include games of skill like horse- racing. In any case, Section 49 of the Police Act and Section 11 of the Gaming Act specifically save the games of mere skill from the penal provisions of the two Acts. We, therefore, hold that wagering or betting on horse-racing - a game of skill - does not come within the definition of 'gaming' under the two Acts."

Further in the matter of All India Gaming

Federation, Rep. By its General Secretary and

Authorised Signatory, Sunil Krishnamurthy (supra),

Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held as follows:-

"27. The games of online rummy and poker are no different from playing physical rummy or poker, other than the fact that the game is conducted and played virtually on a platform. The game per se is the same rummy game or the same poker game as in physical format. The State purports unreasonable classification and creates an artificial distinction between online and offline rummy. The State has failed to place any material or evidence on record to justify the difference in playing rummy physically or in online mode and the said classification is in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

99. The Apex Court and the High Courts have consistently held that rummy and poker are games of skill, however, at that relevant period, the game of rummy was played only physically (offline) and what is sought to

be banned is only the online games of rummy and poker. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court that rummy is a game of skill and this Court also has held that rummy and poker are games of skill, heavy burden is upon the State to distinguish as to how online games of rummy and poker would partake the character of games of chance and not skill.

104. The State, in the impugned Act, has already included the games of rummy and poker to be online games of chance merely on presumption. The same cannot be protected. The same would be contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court, discussed supra. In view of that, it will have to be held that the inclusion of the games, rummy and poker, in the Schedule of the Act is erroneous, does not stand to reason and the said Schedule deserves to be set aside. The corruption or mischief in a game may not define the game. Of course, in an

isolated case, if it is noticed by the State that the petitioners or any other online games servers, online games providers are using bots or have indulged in any illegal activity, it can take action against it. However, to dub online games of rummy and poker as games of chance would be against the dictum of the Apex Court and the various High Courts."

Section 79(1)(b) of the IT Act outlines the conditions

under which an intermediary is exempt from liability and it

states that the exemption applies if the intermediary's

function is limited to providing access to a communication

system where third-party information is transmitted or

temporarily stored as well as crucially, it also specifies that

the intermediary must not initiate the transmission, select

the receiver, or select or modify the information contained

in the transmission.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

as well as considering the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties as also relying upon the aforementioned

judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matters of K. Satyanarayana (supra) and Dr. K.R.

Lakshmanan (supra) as well as Madras High Court in the

matter of All India Gaming Federation, Rep. By its

General Secretary and Authorized Signatory, Sunil

Krishnamurthy (supra), prima facie, it transpires that the

App of the petitioner's company is a skill based gaming

App, which plays "Rummy" and the same is not prohibited

under the IT Act as well as IT Rules. It further transpires

that before issuance of notice, the petitioner was not given

any opportunity of hearing and without there being any

reason, the App of the petitioner was blocked not only in

the State of Chhattisgarh but in the entire Country. It also

transpires that the betting and gambling comes within List-

2 i.e. State List whereas "Skill Games" covers under the IT

Act, which is a matter of List-1 i.e. Union List, as such, the

State cannot pass orders in respect of the matter of Union

List and also considering the fact that gaming App of the

petitioner incorporates element of mutation and

combination in its game-play, which combined with the

strategic nature of the game, contribute to it being

classified as a "Game of Skill" rather than a "Game of

Chance".

Taking into account of overall facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered

opinion directing that purely as an interim measure, the

petitioner is restrained from using its website in the State

of Chhattisgarh and it is directed to block it through "Gio

block" its website https://sportsbaazi.com/ in the State of

Chhattisgarh. However, the petitioner is permitted to

operate its aforesaid website in other part of the Country,

till the next date of hearing.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the

respondents are directed to file return within a period of

four weeks and thereafter, the petitioner is granted two

weeks time to file rejoinder, if so desired.

List the matter in the first week of August, 2025.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Yogesh