In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has classified poker and rummy as skill-based games rather than gambling.
The ruling came from a division bench consisting of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjeev Shukla, in response to a petition filed by M/s DM Gaming Private Limited.
Insights
DM Gaming Private Limited challenged a 24 January directive from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), City Commissionerate Agra, which had denied the company permission to operate a gaming unit for poker and rummy.
In its petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, DM Gaming argued that poker and rummy are skill games and not gambling, rejecting the concerns that labeled them as gambling.
The company’s legal team cited precedents set by the Supreme Court and various High Court rulings that affirm the distinction between skill-based games and gambling.
The court focused on deciding whether to categorize poker and rummy as gambling or skill-based activities.
The petitioners contended that the DCP based the refusal on speculative concerns rather than concrete evidence.
The bench criticized the authorities for denying permission based on assumptions rather than a thorough examination of the facts.
The court emphasized that permission cannot be denied solely on the basis of potential but unverified impacts.
It noted that any refusal must be substantiated with concrete evidence, not merely speculative fears.
The court has instructed the relevant authorities to reassess the petition with due diligence and issue a reasoned order.
The review should occur within six weeks, giving DM Gaming a chance to present their case.
The decision also underscored that granting permission does not preclude the authorities from monitoring the premises to prevent illegal gambling activities.
This ruling marks a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding gaming activities in India, reinforcing the classification of poker and rummy as skill games and challenging assumptions that link them with gambling.
Also Read: Allahabad HC Denies Divorce Appeal; Emphasizes Need For Proof Of Insanity
