Legal Analysis: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 594 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala (with Justice R. Mahadevan concurring)
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgments of the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which had struck down state amendments banning online gaming (including rummy and poker) played for stakes. The Supreme Court allowed the State appeals, upheld the amendments, and held that betting on games of skill falls within the legislative competence of the States under Entry 34 of List II (“betting and gambling”) and also under Entry 1 (“public order”).

Synopsis of the Judgment
The State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka enacted amendments to their respective gaming/police acts to prohibit online betting and gambling, including on games of skill (rummy, poker, etc.) played for stakes. The Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court struck down the amendments, holding that Entry 34 of List II (“betting and gambling”) must be read conjunctively as “betting on gambling” (i.e., only games of chance), and that games of skill played for stakes are outside State competence and protected under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court reversed the High Courts, holding that Entry 34 is a broad expression covering all forms of betting and gambling, including betting on games of skill. The Court clarified that the long-standing distinction between games of skill and games of chance is irrelevant once stakes are involved because the act of staking money on an uncertain outcome is betting per se, irrespective of the underlying game. The Court also held that the State Legislatures have competence under Entry 1 (public order) and Entry 6 (public health) to regulate online gaming due to its widespread addictive and financially ruinous effects on the community. The impugned amendments were declared intra vires.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (with connected appeals from Karnataka)

• Civil Appeal Nos.: 6124-6131 of 2023; 8275-8279 of 2026; 6132-6143 of 2023; 6144 of 2023

• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan (Division Bench)

• Judgment Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 594 (Reportable)

• Appeal From: (i) Judgment dated 03.08.2021 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 18022 of 2020 etc. (Junglee Games); (ii) Judgment dated 09.11.2023 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 13203 of 2023 etc. (TN Online Gambling Act challenge); (iii) Judgment dated 14.02.2022 of the Karnataka High Court in AIGF v. State of Karnataka.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 246 (distribution of legislative powers), Seventh Schedule, List II (State List): Entry 1 (public order), Entry 6 (public health), Entry 26 (trade and commerce), Entry 33 (sports, entertainments and amusements), Entry 34 (betting and gambling). Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business), Article 19(6) (reasonable restrictions). Article 14 (equality). Article 245 (extent of laws). Doctrine of pith and substance.

• Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930: Sections 3(b) (definition of “gaming” amended to include cyber space), 3-A (prohibition of wagering or betting in cyber space for rummy, poker or any other game), 11 (protection for games of mere skill removed).

• Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022/2023: Sections 2(i), 2(l)(iv), Schedule (deeming rummy and poker as online games of chance).

• Karnataka Police Act, 1963: Sections 2(7) (definition of “gaming” amended to include online games with wagering or betting, including on games of skill), 2(11) (instruments of gaming to include computers, mobile apps, internet), 2(12A) (definition of “online gaming”), 2(13) (“place” to include virtual platforms), 78 (offences for opening or using virtual places for gaming with stakes), 176 (saving clause for pure games of skill but not for wagering on them).

• Public Gambling Act, 1867: Historical context; excluded games of mere skill.

• Information Technology Act, 2000: Referenced for definitions of computer resources, communication devices etc.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (RMDC-I) (AIR 1957 SC 699) – Held that a competition to be gambling must depend to a substantial degree on chance; prize competitions of a gambling nature are res extra commercium. The Court in the present case reinterpreted RMDC-I to hold that it did not decide the scope of “betting” in Entry 34; it only dealt with “prize competitions” where entry fees were the stake. The judgment does not protect betting on games of skill.

• R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (RMDC-II) (AIR 1957 SC 628) – Severability principle; competitions involving substantial skill are business activities protected under Article 19(1)(g). The present Court held that this protection applies only when games are played without stakes; once stakes are introduced, the activity becomes betting.

• Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 – Horse-racing hel

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.