Landmark Judgment Sets Aside High Court Rulings, Upholds Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Laws Prohibiting Online Betting and Gambling on Games of Skill, Citing Public Order and Legislative Competence under Entry 34 and Entry 1 List II
In a significant decision dated 27 May 2026, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022/23, and the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which prohibit and regulate betting and gambling on online games including games of skill played with stakes.
The judgment arose from appeals against the striking down by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts of respective amendments that criminalized wagering on games like online rummy and poker. The High Courts had ruled that State legislative competence under Entry 34 List II of the Seventh Schedule extended only to “betting on gambling” — i.e., betting on games of chance — thereby excluding betting on games of skill from State regulation and treating such games as protected business activities under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Rejecting the narrow interpretation adopted by the High Courts, the Supreme Court held that the conjunctive phrase “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 List II must be understood in its ordinary sense as covering both betting and gambling as distinct but related activities. Both involve staking money on an uncertain event, whether the underlying game is of skill or chance. Thus, betting on games of skill played for stakes squarely falls within the ambit of “betting and gambling” and is amenable to regulation or prohibition by the States under Entry 34.
The Court traced the original intent of the Constitution-makers from Constituent Assembly Debates, where Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that Entry 34 was intended to empower States to regulate or prohibit betting and gambling activities, including games like rummy played for stakes, which could amount to gambling. The Court emphasized the necessity of a broad and liberal interpretation of legislative entries, cautioning against artificial narrowing based on judicial gloss or dictionary meanings.
Addressing precedents relied upon by the petitioners, including the landmark RMDC cases and K.R. Lakshmanan v. Tamil Nadu, the Court clarified that those decisions do not limit Entry 34 to games of chance alone, nor do they grant immunity to betting on games of skill. Instead, those judgments recognized that games of skill played without stakes enjoy constitutional protection as business under Article 19(1)(g), but betting on such games introduces an element of gambling that is “res extra commercium” (outside commerce) and unprotected.
The Court also rejected the argument that the State lacked competence under other entries, holding that Entries 1 (public order), 6 (public health), 26 (trade and commerce), and 33 (sports, entertainment and amusements) of List II independently empower States to regulate or prohibit online betting and gambling. The Court extensively analyzed the concept of “public order,” reaffirming its wide connotation that includes social and economic order, public tranquility, and the prevention of widespread harm such as addiction, financial distress, and suicides linked to online gaming.
On proportionality, the Court held that since betting and gambling are activities “res extra commercium,” they do not enjoy fundamental right protections and thus the State’s blanket prohibition or regulation cannot be regarded as arbitrary or disproportionate. The Court accepted the States’ reliance on empirical data, including surveys and reports on addiction, mental health harms, and suicides, to justify the restrictive measures.
The judgment also addressed the role of technological advances and the rise of online gaming platforms. It acknowledged that cyberspace has transformed betting and gambling, making it more accessible and addictive, thereby justifying the States’ legislative response to regulate or prohibit online betting on games of skill as well.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgments and declared the amendments to the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws intra vires the Constitution. The Court found no constitutional violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). No costs were awarded.
This decision marks a decisive shift affirming State legislative competence to regulate and prohibit betting and gambling on online games, including skill-based games played for stakes, reinforcing the States’ duty to protect public order, health, and welfare in the digital age.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 19(1)(g), Entry 34 List II of the Seventh Schedule, Entry 1 List II of the Seventh Schedule, Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 (Sections 3(b), 3A, 11), Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Sections 2(7), 2(11), 2(12A), 2(13), 78(1)(a), 176), Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022/23
State of Tamil Nadu v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2909810
