In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that Poker and Rummy are games of skill, not gambling. The decision was delivered in the case of M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Writ – C No. 3880 of 2024) by a bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla. The judgment sets an important precedent in determining the legal status of card games involving skill in Uttar Pradesh.
Case Background
The petitioner, M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Saxena, assisted by Advocates Yash Tandon and Rohit Sharma, had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The company was aggrieved by an order dated January 24, 2024, issued by the DCP, City Commissionerate, Agra, which denied permission to operate a gaming unit where Poker and Rummy were to be played.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the refusal of permission was based on mere speculation that such games could lead to disruptions of peace and harmony or be considered gambling. The counsel cited precedents, including the Supreme Court judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.S. Sathyanarayana (AIR 1968 SC 825) and the Madras High Court’s decision in Junglee Games India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 18022 of 2020), both of which have established that Poker and Rummy are games of skill and not gambling.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Poker and Rummy could be classified as gambling activities or recognized as games of skill. The petitioner’s counsel argued that both games involve a significant degree of skill, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K.S. Sathyanarayana (AIR 1968 SC 825) and the Madras High Court in Junglee Games India Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 18022 of 2020).
The petitioner contended that the denial of permission by the DCP was based merely on “surmises and conjectures” that allowing such games could potentially disrupt peace and harmony or lead to gambling. The petitioner argued that such assumptions do not constitute a valid legal basis for denying permission.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, emphasized the need for the authorities to examine the issue thoroughly and not deny permissions based on mere assumptions. In their judgment, the court stated:
“Denial of the permission only on the basis of the clairvoyance of the officer concerned cannot be a ground that can be sustained. Hard facts are required to be brought on record by the officer to deny the permission for carrying out the recreational gaming activities.”
The court further clarified that granting permission to run a gaming unit where Poker and Rummy are played does not prevent the authorities from monitoring the premises for illegal gambling activities. The court stated:
“The permission being granted by itself would not prevent the authorities concerned to check on the aspect of gambling that may take place at a particular place, and if the same happens, necessary action under law can always be taken by the authorities.”
Directions to the Authorities
The High Court directed the concerned authority to revisit the matter, considering the judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts on the issue of skill-based games. The court mandated that the authority pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
Case Details
– Case Title: M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
– Case Number: Writ – C No. 3880 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla
– Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Saxena, assisted by Advocates Yash Tandon and Rohit Sharma
– Counsel for Respondents: Additional Advocate General Sri Praveen Kumar Giri, assisted by Standing Counsel Sri Gireesh Chandra Tiwari
– Petitioner: M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others
