Madras HC denies immediate relief to online gaming companies

AIGF’s challenge of the TN Gaming Act was listed (alongside the challenges filed by Gameskraft, Junglee Games, Head Digital Works and Play Games 24×7) before the bench of the Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P D Audikesavalu of the Madras High Court.

The bench said that they would prefer to take up the writ petitions for final hearing anytime rather than hearing the matter for the purpose of interim relief since the arguments would be identical. The batch of writ petitions challenge the Tamil Nadu government’s new law banning online gambling and classifying online rummy and poker as games of chance.

The senior advocates on behalf of the petitioners were Abhishek Manu Singhvi who represented Gameskraft and Mukul Rohatgi who appeared on behalf of Junglee Rummy, A23 and Games24x7 highlighted the jurisprudence on games of skill, and the issue of legislative competence.

“Mukul Rohatgi strenuously contended that the new law is ex facie unconstitutional and is in the teeth of several Supreme Court judgments and High Court judgments, including the 2021 Madras HC division bench judgment in Junglee Games,” gaming lawyer Jay Sayta who witnessed the proceedings on Monday told ET.

“He contended that it is a well settled position that games like rummy and poker are games of skill and cannot be completely prohibited in the manner sought to be banned by the Tamil Nadu government.”

Discover the stories of your interest

He added that Singhvi, too, contended that three High Court judgments have recently struck down bans on online rummy passed by the Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments.Kapil Sibal who appeared on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government contended that the petitioners had argued the same points before a division bench led by the Chief Justice’s predecessor and that the same points were being argued again. He further stated that he wanted to be physically present for making submissions.

The court then listed the matter for hearing on 13th July, 2023 for allowing the petitioners to make submissions for interim relief and that Sibal could reply to those arguments on July 20 or any other date convenient to him.