{"id":389710,"date":"2026-07-08T10:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T04:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389710"},"modified":"2026-07-08T10:44:47","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T05:14:47","slug":"sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/","title":{"rendered":"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a batch of civil appeals concerning the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021<\/a>, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022<\/a>, and the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021<\/a>, a Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.<\/span>, upheld the legislative competence of the States to prohibit online games played with stakes, holding that once the element of staking money on an uncertain outcome enters the picture, the nature of the underlying game, whether of skill or chance, ceases to be relevant and the activity falls within the ambit of “betting and gambling” under Entry 34, List II of the Seventh Schedule.<\/p>\n

Holding that betting or wagering on games of skill is res extra commercium<\/span> and does not enjoy protection under Article 19(1)(g<\/span>), the Court overruled the contrary views of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, upheld the impugned State legislations as constitutionally valid, and further held that the States were also competent to enact such measures under Entry 1 (public order), List II, in view of the demonstrable social harm caused by online betting and gambling.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court decided a batch of appeals challenging judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, which had struck down key provisions of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021<\/a>, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022<\/a>, and the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021<\/a>. The impugned legislations sought to prohibit or regulate online gaming involving stakes by expanding the definition of “gaming” and removing statutory protection available to games of skill. The High Courts held that the States lacked legislative competence under Entry 34, List II to prohibit games of skill played with stakes, ruled that such activities remained protected under Article 19(1)(g<\/span>), and found the impugned measures to be arbitrary and disproportionate. Aggrieved thereby, the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka preferred appeals before the Supreme Court, raising questions concerning the scope of Entry 34, List II, the distinction between games of skill and games of chance in the online context, and the constitutional validity of prohibiting games of skill played with stakes.<\/p>\n

Issues For Consideration<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the conjunction “and” appearing in the expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34, List II of the Seventh Schedule<\/a> to the Constitution<\/a> is to be interpreted to mean that the competence of the State Legislature extends only to betting on gambling activities? In other words, whether betting on games of pure skill falls outside the purview of the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the said entry?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the 2 impugned State legislations failed to correctly infer and apply the decisions of this Court in RMDC-I<\/span> 1<\/sup><\/a> RMDC-II<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a> and Dr K.R. Lakshmanan<\/span> v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/span>, (1996) 2 SCC 226<\/a>, respectively?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the 2 impugned State legislations are manifestly arbitrary insofar as they treat both the games of skill and games of chance in the same manner?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Whether the 2 impugned state legislations, by imposing a blanket prohibition on online games with stakes, failed to adopt the least intrusive measure for regulation of the online gaming activities and entities, and as such could be said to be constitutionally invalid for being disproportionate?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Whether the decision of the State Legislatures to regulate and prohibit online gaming with stakes by way of the impugned legislations is supported by any empirical finding or research?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    Whether the expression “gaming” could be said to have acquired the status of nomen juris<\/span> and as such includes only games of chance and excludes games involving substantial skill?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    Whether there is any rational nexus between the decision of the State Legislature to prohibit the playing of online games with stakes and the object sought to be achieved by the State Governments?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    Whether the competence of the State Legislature in passing the impugned legislations is to be derived solely from Entry 34, List II, or other entries like “public order”, “police”, “public health”, etc. also empower the State Legislation to pass the impugned legislations?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis<\/p>\n

    1. Scope of Entry 34 in List II of the Seventh Schedule<\/a> to the Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

    The Court observed that addressing the principal contention that Entry 34, List II is confined to games of chance alone, as held by the High Courts in All India Gaming Federation (AIGF) v. State of Karnataka3<\/sup><\/a> and Junglee Games India Private Limited<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2762<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that the said finding deserved to be set aside. The Court observed that while the Public Gambling Act, enacted over a century ago, excluded games of mere skill as a matter of policy in a different technological era, the advent of cyberspace where every mobile phone can become a virtual gambling space justified fresh legislative intervention by the States to curb financial losses, gambling debts and addiction. On interpretation, the Court held that the intent of the Constituent Assembly does not suggest any restriction of Entry 34 to games of chance alone; entries in the Seventh Schedule must be construed liberally to confer wide legislative competence. Further, the two RMDC<\/span> decisions did not determine the scope of “betting and gambling” under Entry 34 and K.R. Lakshmanan<\/span> was rendered in the unique facts of that case and does not interpret the amplitude of the Entry. Accordingly, the narrow construction adopted by the High Courts was held to be erroneous and was set aside.<\/p>\n

    2. Constituent Assembly Debates on Entry 34, List II<\/p>\n

    The Court observed that tracing the history of Entry 34, List II (erstwhile Entry 45 before the Constituent Assembly), the Supreme Court examined the Constituent Assembly Debates of 2 September 1949 and held that a clearer intention of the framers could not be derived from any other source. The Court noted that during discussions on Entry 44 (now Entry 33) and Entry 45, Shri T.T. Krishnamachari clarified, in response to objections by Shri H.V. Kamath regarding a proposed ban on rummy, that when rummy is played for high stakes it takes the form of gambling, and powers were available under Entry 45 to prohibit playing rummy for money.<\/p>\n

    Further, despite objections by certain members seeking deletion of the entry “betting and gambling”, Dr B.R. Ambedkar defended its inclusion, after which the motion for deletion was dropped and the Entry was adopted. From this, the Court concluded that the founding fathers clearly intended even skill-based games such as rummy to be regulated, and even prohibited, when played with stakes, and that such activity would fall within Entry 34 as it now stands. To shrink the Entry to games of chance alone, and to obliterate the significance of stakes from its purport, would violate not only its express scope but also the wisdom, intention and vision of the framers. The narrow interpretation adopted by the High Courts was therefore held to have rendered the States powerless to regulate betting and gambling, contrary to the constitutional design, and was accordingly set aside.<\/p>\n

    3. Entries in the Seventh Schedule must receive broad and liberal interpretation<\/p>\n

    Emphasising the settled principles governing interpretation of legislative entries, the Supreme Court observed that the Entries under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution have been drafted to be as broad, expansive and wide as possible. The Court held that if the word “and” occurring in Entry 34 “betting and gambling” were to be read as “on”, as effectively done by the High Courts, it would shrink and limit the legislative scope of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures. Such an interpretative approach, the Court cautioned, would militate against fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation and run contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Relying on the nine-Judge Bench decision in State of U.P.<\/span> v. Lalta Prasad Vaish<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3029<\/a> and the judgment in Welfare Assn.<\/span> v. Ranjit P. Gohil<\/span>, (2003) 9 SCC 358<\/a>, the Court reiterated that entries in the Seventh Schedule must receive a liberal and plenary construction, and cannot be read in a narrow or pedantic manner so as to whittle down legislative competence. Accordingly, the restrictive reading adopted by the High Courts was held to be unsustainable.<\/p>\n

    4. The decisions in RMDC-I, RMDC-II and K.R. Lakshmanan respectively<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court held that the reliance placed by the online gaming companies on the decisions in RMDC-I<\/span>, RMDC-II<\/span> and K.R. Lakshmanan<\/span> was based on a misreading of the judgments divorced from their factual and statutory context. The Court observed that none of these decisions interpreted Entry 34, List II to mean “betting on gambling” or held that betting on games of skill falls outside the legislative competence of the State.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that the RMDC decisions only dealt with prize competitions and did not consider the question whether betting on games of skill would be covered under “betting and gambling”. While games of skill may not amount to gambling, the act of staking money on the uncertain outcome of such games constitutes betting and falls within the scope of Entry 34, List II.<\/p>\n

    With respect to K.R. Lakshmanan<\/span>, the Court observed that the protection afforded to horse-racing flowed from specific statutory exceptions protecting games of “mere skill” and was not based on any limitation on the scope of Entry 34, List II. The decision, therefore, could not be relied upon to contend that betting on games of skill is immune from regulation.<\/p>\n

    Rejecting the view of the High Courts, the Supreme Court held that “betting and gambling” is a composite expression and cannot be read as “betting on gambling”. Both betting and gambling involve staking money on an uncertain outcome. Accordingly, while a game of skill may enjoy protection under Article 19(1)(g<\/span>), betting on the outcome of such games can be regulated by the State Legislature under Entry 34, List II.<\/p>\n

    5. Online Gaming Companies’ Interpretation of RMDC-II<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court rejected the contention that RMDC-I protects games of skill played with stakes from the purview of gambling. The Court observed that RMDC-I, while referring to Hamilton’s Hedaya, specifically noticed that even chess, though a game of skill, would amount to gambling when played with stakes. Therefore, the judgment cannot be read to hold that staking money on games of skill enjoys constitutional protection. The Court held that the alleged ratio attributed to RMDC-I, that games of skill played with stakes do not amount to gambling, does not flow from an explicit reading of the judgment and such an interpretation would amount to reading into the decision something which is not present. The Court further observed that the second category of prize competitions considered in RMDC-I, involving prediction of uncertain future events, was held to be a gambling adventure, and the act of staking on an unknown and uncertain outcome in a game of skill would similarly fall within the ambit of betting and gambling.<\/p>\n

    6. The impugned legislations do not suffer from manifest arbitrariness<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court held that there was no manifest arbitrariness or discrimination under Article 14, as the classification adopted by the State was based on a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court observed that irrespective of whether a game is one of skill or chance, once played with stakes, it amounts to betting and gambling.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that the essential ingredients of betting and gambling are: (a<\/span>) there must be a stake\/bet; (b<\/span>) the bet must be placed on the result of an uncertain outcome; and (c<\/span>) the stake must be placed with the hope of gaining substantially more than what is staked. The nature of the underlying game, whether skill or chance, is immaterial once the element of staking on an uncertain outcome is present.<\/p>\n

    Relying upon various pre-Constitution and post-Constitution decisions, the Court held that gaming in its natural import means playing any game, whether of skill or chance, for stakes. The distinction between a game of skill and a game of chance becomes relevant only where a statute provides protection to games of skill from penal consequences. Such protection does not mean that staking on a game of skill ceases to be betting and gambling.<\/p>\n

    The Court further observed that the medium of play, whether online or offline, is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is whether stakes are involved. Once money is staked on an uncertain event, the activity falls within the ambit of betting and gambling, irrespective of the character of the game.<\/p>\n

    Consequently, the Court rejected the challenge under Article 19(1)(g<\/span>), holding that once the activity is classified as a “betting and gambling” enterprise, it becomes res extra commercium and cannot claim constitutional protection as a trade or business.<\/p>\n

    7. The impugned legislations are not disproportionate<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court held that the power of the State to regulate an activity also includes the power to prohibit it. The impugned legislations merely bring all forms of betting and gambling within the ambit of Entry 34, List II and do not suffer from any arbitrariness.<\/p>\n

    The Court observed that while games of skill are protected under Article 19, betting or wagering on any game, including a game of skill, is not entitled to such protection. Once stakes are involved, the activity amounts to betting and gambling, irrespective of the nature of the game or the quantum of stakes.<\/p>\n

    The Court further held that a skill-based tournament with an entry fee cannot be equated with staking on an uncertain outcome. The legislation was enacted after considering the social harms associated with online betting and gambling, including addiction and financial hardship, and therefore cannot be termed arbitrary.<\/p>\n

    8. On Nomen Juris<\/span> and Legal Fiction<\/p>\n

    The Court rejected the contention that “gaming” has acquired the status of a nomen juris<\/span> confined only to games of chance. It held that the Constitution uses the broader expression “betting and gambling” under Entry 34, List II, and the term “gaming” cannot restrict or control its scope. The meaning of gaming is not static but varies across statutes and legislatures, and cannot be frozen to an archaic understanding. The Court further held that once stakes are involved, the activity constitutes betting and gambling irrespective of whether the underlying game is one of skill or chance. Therefore, there is no question of any “Midas Touch” or legal fiction being created by legislation. The legislature is entitled to define and classify expressions to achieve the object of an enactment, and the scope of judicial review against such legislative wisdom remains limited.<\/p>\n

    9. The State Legislature also derives competence from the Entry 1, List II, that is, “public order”<\/p>\n

    The Court held that the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka possessed legislative competence under Article 246(3) read with Entry 1, List II to enact the impugned legislations, as the expression “public order”<\/span> has a wide connotation encompassing public tranquility, public safety, public health, public interest, and the “even tempo of the life of the community”.<\/span> Relying on its settled jurisprudence, the Court observed that public order extends beyond traditional law-and-order concerns and includes social and economic disorders having a community-wide impact, provided there exists a proximate nexus between the legislation and the mischief sought to be addressed.<\/p>\n

    Applying these principles, the Court held that rampant online betting and gambling has normalised wagering, caused widespread addiction, monetary losses, depression, suicides, and financial hardship, particularly among vulnerable sections of society, thereby disturbing public tranquility, impairing public health, and disrupting the even tempo of community life. With every mobile phone becoming a virtual common gambling house, the mischief sought to be curbed by the legislatures had assumed dimensions affecting the public at large. The Court held that the amendments enacted by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, bringing online betting and gambling within the statutory framework, removing the earlier protection extended to wagering on games of skill, and regulating gaming through cyberspace had a direct and proximate relation to the object of preserving public order. Consequently, the impugned enactments were held to be within the legislative competence of the States under Entry 1, List II.<\/p>\n

    Decision<\/p>\n

    The Court allowed the appeals filed by the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, holding that the High Courts had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of Entry 34, List II and had erroneously restricted the States’ legislative competence over “betting and gambling”. It held that while games of skill may enjoy constitutional protection, betting or wagering on games of skill does not. Once the element of staking money on an uncertain outcome enters the picture, the nature of the underlying game becomes irrelevant and the activity falls within the ambit of betting and gambling, which is res extra commercium. The Court further held that the State’s power to regulate includes the power to prohibit such activities, that the expression “gaming” is not a nomen juris and may be defined by the Legislature, and that the impugned legislations were supported by empirical material demonstrating the adverse impact of online betting and gambling on public order, public health, and societal welfare.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the appeals preferred by the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were allowed. The judgments of the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court were set aside. The Court declared Part II of the 2021 Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, Sections 2<\/a>(i<\/span>), 2(l)(iv<\/span>) and the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Online Gambling Act, 2022<\/a>, and Sections 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 8<\/a> and 9<\/a>, Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021<\/a> as intra vires the Constitution. The connected Civil Appeal No. 6144 of 2023 was disposed of in the same terms.<\/p>\n

    [State of T.N.<\/span> v. Junglee Games India (P) Ltd.<\/span>, Ordered on 27-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

    1.<\/a> State of Bombay<\/span> v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala<\/span>, AIR 1957 SC 699 (RMDC-I)<\/span><\/p>\n

    2.<\/a> R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, AIR 1957 SC 628 (RMDC-II<\/span>)<\/p>\n

    3.<\/a> (2022) 1 KCCR 513<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Supreme Court held that once money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the nature of the underlying game becomes irrelevant and the activity constitutes betting and gambling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67541,"featured_media":389711,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[48163,109257,109259,49365,70880,109261,109258,109256,5363,109260],"class_list":["post-389710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-48163","tag-betting-on-games-of-skill","tag-entry-34-list-ii","tag-justice-j-b-pardiwala","tag-justice-r-mahadevan","tag-karnataka-police-amendment-act","tag-online-gambling-law-india","tag-online-gaming-with-stakes","tag-supreme-court","tag-tamil-nadu-online-gambling-act"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court upholds States' power to ban online games with stakes |SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"headline\":\"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2926,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"2021\",\"Betting on games of skill\",\"Entry 34 List II\",\"Justice J.B. Pardiwala\",\"justice R. mahadevan\",\"Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act\",\"Online gambling law India\",\"Online gaming with stakes\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Tamil Nadu Online Gambling Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court upholds States' power to ban online games with stakes |SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"States power to ban online games with stakes\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/08\\\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\",\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Malika Bhola\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/malika-bhola\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court upholds States' power to ban online games with stakes |SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes","og_description":"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Malika Bhola","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Malika Bhola","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/"},"author":{"name":"Malika Bhola","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"headline":"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes","datePublished":"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/"},"wordCount":2926,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp","keywords":["2021","Betting on games of skill","Entry 34 List II","Justice J.B. Pardiwala","justice R. mahadevan","Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act","Online gambling law India","Online gaming with stakes","Supreme Court","Tamil Nadu Online Gambling Act"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/","name":"Supreme Court upholds States' power to ban online games with stakes |SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-08T04:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-08T05:14:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"description":"Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka online gaming laws, ruling that betting on games of skill is gambling, res extra commercium, and may be prohibited by States","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"States power to ban online games with stakes"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/08\/sc-upholds-states-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Betting on games of skill is gambling, not business: Here\u2019s why Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online gaming with stakes"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1","name":"Malika Bhola","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Malika Bhola"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/malika-bhola\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/States-power-to-ban-online-games-with-stakes.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67541"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389710"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389710\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389714,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389710\/revisions\/389714"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/389711"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}