Introduction:
The Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India case is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India regarding the constitutionality of online lotteries and the authority of the state to regulate them.
The verdict, which was delivered on 5th May 2015 by a division bench, carries crucial implications for
the legal treatment of online gambling in India.
Background:
The case emerged from a writ petition filed by Skill Lotto Solutions; a private company engaged in
the online lottery business. The company challenged the constitutional validity of two notifications
issued by the states of Kerala and West Bengal, respectively, which had banned online lotteries
within their jurisdiction.
Skill Lotto Solutions argued that online lotteries differed from traditional lotteries as they were
based on skill, rather than chance. The company contended that the ban on online lotteries violated
its fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
The Union of India, the respondent in the case, contended that online lotteries constituted a form of
gambling that could have harmful societal effects. The respondent argued that the state had the
power to regulate such activities under its police powers.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court held that online lotteries constituted a form of
gambling and were not protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The court further
ruled that the state had the authority to regulate such activities under its police powers. As a result,
the court upheld the validity of the notifications issued by Kerala and West Bengal, banning online
lotteries in their respective states.
It is a significant legal precedent in India, as it establishes the state’s power to regulate online
lotteries and other forms of online gambling.
Pre-Case Year:
Before the Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India case, various private companies were offering online
lottery services, which were gaining popularity in India. However, concerns were raised about the
legality and potential social impact of these activities. As a result, several states-imposed bans or
regulations on online lotteries, leading to a legal dispute.
Legal Question Raised:
Whether online lotteries could be classified as gambling and if they were entitled to protection under
the constitutional right to carry on business. Additionally, the case also addressed the issue of
whether the state had the power to regulate online lotteries under its police powers, given the
possible societal impact of such activities. The decision in this case would have far-reaching
consequences for the legality of online lotteries and other forms of online gambling in India.
Contentions:
Skill Lotto Solutions argued that online lotteries differed from traditional lotteries as they were
based on skill, rather than chance, and therefore, the ban on online lotteries violated its
fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
On the other hand, the Union of India, the respondent in the case, contended that online lotteries
constituted a form of gambling that could have harmful societal effects. The respondent argued that
the state had the power to regulate such activities under its police powers.
Therefore, the main contention in the Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India case was whether online
lotteries were a form of gambling, and consequently, whether the state had the power to regulate
or ban them in the interest of public welfare. The case also involved the question of whether online
lotteries were entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to carry on any lawful business or occupation.
Judgement:
Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the
notifications issued by the states of Kerala and West Bengal that had banned online lotteries within
their jurisdictions. The court held that online lotteries were a form of gambling and were not entitled
to protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to carry on
any lawful business or occupation.
The court noted that the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) was not absolute and was
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public welfare. The court
held that online lotteries were games of chance that could have harmful societal effects, and as
such, the state had the power to regulate or ban them in the interest of public welfare under its
police powers.
Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the notifications issued by the states of Kerala and West
Bengal, which had banned online lotteries within their jurisdictions, as a valid exercise of their police
powers. The judgement established the power of the state to regulate or ban online lotteries and
other forms of online gambling in India in the interest of public welfare, even if they are based on
skill rather than chance.
Conclusion:
This case upheld the power of the state to regulate or ban online lotteries and other forms of online
gambling in India in the interest of public welfare. The Supreme Court held that online lotteries were
a form of gambling and were not entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian
Constitution. The court clarified that the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) was not
absolute and was subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public
welfare.
The judgement in this case has set an important legal precedent for future cases involving the
regulation of online gambling in India. It has clarified the scope and limits of the right to carry on
business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and has established the power of the state
to regulate or ban online lotteries and other forms of online gambling in India in the interest of
public welfare. This decision has significant implications for the online gambling industry in India and
has helped to ensure that the interests of public welfare are protected.
Written by: HARSHIT YADAV, BBA.LL.B [H], Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher & School of Law
0 Comments