Ban On Online Gaming, Online Betting Unconstitutional: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court on Monday observed that the amended provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which prohibited and criminalised betting on and playing games of skill, which also included online games were unconstitutional.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna Dixit clarified that even though it was striking down those relevant provisions of the amended act, nothing in this verdict could prevent the state from introducing legislation to regulate gambling or betting in accordance with the constitution.

With this verdict, Karnataka becomes the third state to allow games of skill and betting on the same. The Madras and Kerala high courts in August and September 2021 respectively had also found the ban on online skill-games unconstitutional which included poker and rummy.

"The Karnataka high court judgment has found the ban on skill-based games unconstitutional. This means, skill-based games, which mean games that prominently require one's skill to succeed are allowed. Rummy, chess, and fantasy sports are skill-based games, where matka is purely a game of chance," senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said.

The high court's judgment came on a challenge to the Karnataka state's amended police act—enacted on October 5, 2021—that banned online gaming and betting. Violation of the same attracted jail term up to three years, and a fine up to Rs. 1 lakh.

Those challenging the ban argued that there was a difference between a game of skill and a game of chance. Another argument said that the state's ban on playing and betting on games of skill was against Supreme Court judgments.

"Constitutional Courts have repeatedly held that games of skill (involving risking of money or otherwise) do not amount to wagering or betting, and therefore are protected under Article 19 of the Constitution," a plea had said.

Advocate General PK Navadgi, who was representing the state, argued such games did not require great skill and were in fact, predominantly a game of chance.

"You are placing money over the performance of players over which you have no role or control whatsoever. Once you establish this, how is it a game of skill?" Navadgi had argued during the hearing.

The high court has not yet uploaded its detailed version of the judgment.