APHC010474542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24524 of 2024 along with WP.Nos.19500, 29943, 30326 of 2024 & 13751 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 7 to 7.4 [3584] 1. WP.No.24524 of 2024: Vijayawada Club and Others ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents 2. W.P.No.19500 of 2024: George Coronation Club ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents 3. W.P.No.29943 of 2024: Chilkaluripeta Recreation Club ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents 4. W.P.No.30326 of 2024: Cosmopolitan Cultural Centre and others ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents 5. W.P.No.13751 of 2025: The Kanchikacherla Cultural,Recreational and Social Service Club ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents ********** HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 21st September, 2026. Present : Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. K. V. Aditya Chowdary – WP.Nos.24524 & 30326 of 2024 Mr. Polisetty Radha Krishna – W.P.No.19500 of 2024 Mr. Ginjupalli Subba Rao – W.P.Nos.29943 of 2024 & 13751 of 2025 Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. D. Yatindra Dev (Spl.GP) LISA GILL, CJ: All above said writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and adjudication, at request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, as question involved in all writ petitions is identical. 2. Questions as raised in writ petitions are: i. Whether amendments carried out to Section 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3A, 4, 5, 6 and complete substitution of Section 15 of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, carried out by State is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and thus liable to be set aside? ii. Whether Game of Rummy is a “Game of Skill” or a “Game of Chance”? iii. Whether a “Game of Skill” and a “Game of Chance” are distinct in nature? Page 3 of 16 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch iv. Whether Regulation of Game of Rummy being a “Game of Skill” is within legislative competence of State and whether it is beyond purview of Entry 34 of List-II Constitution of India? 3. Amended provisions, Section 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3A, 4, 5, 6 of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 19741, (for short, “Act, 1974”) read as under: “2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (1) 'common gaming house', means-(i) in the case of gaming- (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) … (e) … (f) on any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in which the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes, in money or otherwise, is made to depend on chance, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel [cyber space] or any place whatsoever in which the gaming takes place or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are kept or used for such gaming; (ii) in the case of any other form of gaming, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place whatsoever in which any instrument of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place whether by way of charge, for the use of such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place or instruments of gaming or otherwise howsoever; Explanation:- For the purpose of clause(ii), any premise or place or cyber space belonging to or occupied by a club, society, company or other associations of persons, whether incorporated or 1 As per Act No.43 of 2020, pub. in A.P. Gaz. Part IV-B Ext. dated 31.12.2020 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch not, which is used or kept for the purpose of gaming shall be deemed to be a common gaming house notwithstanding that there is no profit or gain for the club, society, company or other associations of persons on account thereof. (2) 'gaming' means playing a game for winning of prizes in money or otherwise and includes playing a game of mutka or satta [or playing on line game for winning money or any other stakes] and lucky board and wagering or betting; except where such wagering or betting takes place upon a horse race- (i) on the day on which the horse-race is to be run: (ii) in an enclosure which the stewards controlling the horserace ¹[or race meeting] have, with the sanction of the Government set apart for the purpose; and (iii) (a) with a licensed book maker; or (b) by means of a totalisator; but does not include a lottery; Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause- (i) Wagering or betting shall includes,- (a) collection or soliciting of bets; (b) the receipt or distribution of winning or prizes in money or otherwise in respect of any wager or bet; (c) any act which is intended to aid, induce, solicit or facilitate wagering or betting or such collection, soliciting, receipt or distribution; (d) any act of risking money or playing stakes or otherwise on the result of a game or an event including on a game of skill. (e) any action specified in sub-clauses (a) to (d) carried out directly or indirectly by the players playing any game or by any third parties. 3. Penalty for opening, etc., a common gaming house:- (1) Any person who opens, keeps, operates, uses or permits to be used any common gaming house or online gaming or conducts or assists in conducting the business of any common gaming house or advances or furnishes money for gaming therein, shall be punishable- HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch (i) For the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one (1) year and with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only); but in the absence of special reasons to be recorded in writing, the punishment awarded under this clause shall be imprisonment for not less than three (3) months and fine not less than Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only); (ii) For every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two (2) years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), but in absence of special reasons to be recorded in writing the punishment awarded under this clause shall be- (a) For a second offence, imprisonment for not less than six (6) months and fine of not less than Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only); (b) For a third or subsequent offence, imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and fine of not less than Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, the expression "person" includes the owner, or as the case may be the occupier of the place used as a common gaming house and where such place belongs to or is occupied by a club, society or other association of persons, the person having the care or management of such place. (2) It shall not be necessary, in order to convict any person for opening, keeping or using or permitting the use of common gaming house or of being concerned with the care or management of a common gaming house, to prove that any person found therein was gaming for money, wager, bet or stake. 3A. Offences by companies:- Where a person committing a contravention of section or any other provisions of this Act is a every person who, at the time of the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, its managing HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch directors and other directors, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punishable accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge of that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. 4. Penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house:- Whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six (6) months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) or with both. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, any person found in any common gaming house during gaming therein shall be presumed to have been present there, for the purpose of gaming. 5. Offences are cognizable and non-bailable:— (1) Every offence under this Act is cognizable and non-bailable. (2) Any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police has got authority- (i) to enter any place and at any time with such force and with such assistance as may be found necessary; (ii) to arrest all persons found therein; (iii) to search all such persons and all parts of such place; and (iv) to seize- (a) all money found with such persons; (b) all instruments of gaming; and (c) all moneys, all securities for money and articles of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming which are found in such place. (v) to freeze bank accounts which are used for the purpose of gaming. Page 7 of 16 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch 6. Instrument of gaming found in a place entered or secured to be evidence that place is common gaming house:- where any instrument of gaming or its facilities found in any place entered or searched, on or about person found therein, it shall be presumed that such place is used as a common gaming house and that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming although no gaming was actually seen by police officer or any of his assistants. 4. Section 15 of Act, 1974, after amendment reads as under: “15. Overriding effect:- The Provisions of this Act, shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force.” 5. Learned counsel for respondents at the outset submitted that matter is covered against petitioners on all fours especially keeping in view judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. and Others [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1014]. 6. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) formulated following questions for consideration: “214. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our consideration: (i) Whether the conjunction “and” appearing in the expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 of the List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is to be interpreted to mean that the competence of the State Legislature extends only to betting on gambling activities? In HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch 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? (ii) Whether the two impugned state legislations failed to correctly infer and apply the decisions of this Court in RMDC-I (supra), RMDC- II (supra) and K.R. Lakshmanan (supra), respectively? (iii) Whether the two impugned state legislations are manifestly arbitrary insofar as they treat both the games of skill and games of chance in the same manner? (iv) Whether the two 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? (v) 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? (vi) Whether the expression “gaming” could be said to have acquired the status of nomen juris and as such includes only games of chance and excludes games involving substantial skill? (vii) 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? (viii) 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?” 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court was considering appeals filed by State of Tamil Nadu and State of Karnataka, challenging judgments of respective High Courts in respect to amendments made in respective State legislations, HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch wherein definition of gaming was enlarged to include online games all forms of wagering or betting etc., High Court of Madras struck down Schedule to Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, including Poker and Rummy as prohibited Games of Chance. Relevant provisions were read down to exclude Poker and Rummy from “Online Games of Chance”. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while referring to Constituent Assembly debates in respect to Game of Rummy, held as under: “220. What becomes clear from the above is that the founding Fathers of the Constitution clearly intended even Rummy, a Game of Skill, to be regulated and even be prohibited, when played with Stakes, by virtue of powers under the erstwhile Entry 45 before the Constituent Assembly and which is Entry 34 of List II at present in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. A clearer intention of our makers of the Constitution cannot be derived from any other source. In fact, when one examines the discussion under Entry 45 that immediately followed the discussion under Entry 44, this position is only strengthened. 221. The following comes to light after an examination of the Constituent Assembly Debates on Entry 45 List II, as it then stood, on 02.09.1949: a) Shri Shiban Lal Saksena moved a motion to delete the entry “betting and gambling” on the ground that it would be legalized by the entry and substantiated by stating that it goes against the principles to which the Constituent Assembly is committed. b) Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu supported the deletion and even stated that the entry encourages betting and gambling and taxation on such items does not appear to be proper. Page 10 of 16 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch c) To the above objections, the following was stated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar immediately after which the idea of deleting the entry was dropped and the Entry was adopted as part of our Constitution: “Sir, I am very much afraid that both my friends, Mr. Shibban Lal and Mr. Sahu, have entirely misunderstood the purport of this entry 45 and they are further under a great misapprehension that if this entry was omitted, there would be no betting or gambling in the country at all. I should like to submit to them that if this entry was omitted, there would be absolutely no control of betting and gambling at all, because if entry 45 was there it may either be used for the purpose of permitting betting and gambling or it may be used for the purpose of prohibiting them. If this entry is not there, the provincial governments would be absolutely helpless in the matter. I hope that they will realise what they are doing. If this entry was omitted, the other consequence would be that this subject will be automatically transferred to List I under entry 91. The result will be the same, viz. the Central Government may either permit gambling or prohibit gambling. The question therefore that arises is this whether this entry should remain here or should be omitted here and go specifically as a specified item in List I or be deemed to be included in entry 91. If my friends are keen that there should be no betting and gambling, then the proper thing would be to introduce an article in the Constitution itself making betting and gambling a crime, not to be tolerated by the State. As it is, it is a preventive thing and the State will have full power to prohibit gambling. I hope that with this explanation they will withdraw their objection to this entry.” (Emphasis Supplied) 222. In short, what becomes apparent is that our founding fathers intended Betting and Gambling to be regulated and left it to the States to determine whether to permit them or prohibit them. While doing so, it was also categorically made clear that playing even skill-based HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch games of rummy for money would tantamount to gambling, and the same would fall within the regulatory powers of Entry 34 List II, as it stands now. To shrink this Entry and limit it to regulate only games of chance, and to completely obliterate the significance of stakes from the purport of the entry, would not only violate the express scope of the entry but also the wisdom, intention and vision of our founding fathers.” 9. After considering its earlier decisions in cases of State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala2 (for short, “RMDC-I”), R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India3 (for short, “RMDC-II”) and Dr. K. R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu4, it was further held as under: “265. Even in a game of skill, the outcome of the game being played by multiple players is an uncertain future event, and even with much exercise of skill, can never be predicted with certainty. We would also like to observe that a game of skill, played without stakes dependent on the outcome is very different from a societal perspective as compared to a game of skill played with stakes on the outcome of the game. The former does not amount to betting or gambling, but the latter amounts to betting, and thus falls within the purview of the legislative powers of the State. … 282. Lastly, on a perusal of the judgment in RMDC-I (supra), the stand of the State is in fact, supported. This Court took recourse and examined the aspects of gambling from the ancient history perspective, the mythological perspective and the perspectives offered by various religions. After quoting extensively from the Rig Veda, the Mahabharata, Yajnavalkya, and Vrihaspati, this Court also took note of Hamilton’s Hedaya and the following was quoted with approval: 2 (1957) 1 SCC 600 3 (1957) 1 SCC 650 4 (1996) 2 SCC 226 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch “…Hamilton in his Hedaya, Vol IV, book XLIV, includes gambling as a kiraheeat or abomination. He says “It is an abomination to play at chess, dice or any other game; for if anything is staked it is gambling, which is expressly prohibited in the Koran or if, on the other hand, nothing be hazarded it is useless and vain.” (Emphasis Supplied) 283. Nothing could be more telling than the above reference to Hamilton’s Hedaya by this Court. If this Court really intended to permit and constitutionally protect games of skill being played with stakes, it could not have possibly quoted Hamilton’s Hedaya and in particular, the above extract in support of that proposition, since it says exactly to the contrary. There is nothing in RMDC-I (supra) to suggest that this Court took note of Hamilton’s Hedaya and expressed its disagreement over the same. To the contrary, in what could be termed as a lecture on the aspects of Betting and Gambling and how the same could not be elevated to the level of a fundamental right under the Constitution, this Court took recourse to Hamilton’s Hedaya as a supporting document and specifically quoted a portion which says that chess being played with stakes would amount to Gambling. There cannot be any doubt that chess is a Game of Skill. Therefore, to even remotely suggest that RMDC-I (supra) is good law for the proposition that a game of skill being played with stakes enjoys constitutional protection is incorrect and deserves to be rejected.” 10. It was thus held that legislation is within competence of State, it is specifically held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that irrespective of whether it is a game of skill or chance but when coupled with stakes, it would amount to betting or gambling. Ultimate conclusion drawn by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in above mentioned case reads as under: HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch “376. In lieu of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our findings as follows: a) The High Court of Madras and the High Court of Karnataka respectively committed an egregious error in giving a very narrow interpretation to Entry 34 of the List II. Both the High Courts failed to take into account the power intended to be bestowed upon the State Legislature under the said Entry by the framers of the Constitution. This has rendered both the States powerless to prohibit the activity of betting and gambling. b) A natural corollary of the observations made by this Court in RMDC-II (supra) is that if games of substantial skill are conducted in a manner that they start to pose a severe threat and problems for the State or cause harm to the public, then the State will not be powerless to regulate such games of substantial skill as well. In the present case, since betting on games of skill is posing a serious threat to the State and the well-being of the masses, such betting would not enjoy immunity merely because it is taking place on a game of skill. c) There was no occasion for this Court to consider the scope of the term “betting” as it appears in the expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 List II, and also the nature of the conjunction “and” joining the two words, while rendering the decisions in RMDC-I (supra) and RMDC-II (supra) respectively. d) While it may be true that games of skill may not get covered by the expression “gambling”, it is not correct to say that even “betting” on games of skill would be out of the competence of the State Legislature to legislate upon. e) In K.R. Lakshmanan (supra), the scope of the expression “betting and gambling” as appearing in Entry 34 was not the subject matter of determination, rather, the issue pertained to whether horse racing would be entitled to the protection of the exception that the State Legislature had itself carved out for games of “mere skill” under Section 49 of the 1963 Police Act and Section 11 of the 1930 Gaming Act respectively. Page 14 of 16 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch f) The decision in K.R. Lakshmanan (supra) has no application to cases like the one at hand where the State Legislature, in its wisdom, has deemed it appropriate to regulate games where monetary stakes are involved, without affording any special protection to games of mere skill. g) A reading of the decision in K.R. Lakshmanan (supra) also indicates that the Court therein considered the manner in which the Club operated and conducted the horse-races, as well as the process by which wagering/betting happened. The observations of the Court clearly indicate that the entire process of conducting races and betting on them was highly regulated and organized, which is very different from the uncertainty and veil of invisibility associated with online gaming activities, whether of skill or of chance. h) The finding in the impugned judgments that the expression “betting and gambling” ought to be interpreted as “betting on gambling” is a clear Constitutional aberration, tinkering with the Constitution or actually rewriting the Constitutional text which Courts are not legally entitled to do. i) The expression “betting and gambling” cannot be split to mean that the staking angle alone would amount to betting whereas the risk angle or the chance element would amount to gamble. Both betting and gambling involve the aspect of staking money on an uncertainty. Merely because the risk element is commonly perceived as “taking a chance”, it cannot mean that an expression would cover only games of chances. j) The protection afforded to games of skill under Entry 34 cannot be construed as protection to betting on games of skill, which essentially becomes a gambling enterprise. k) When the element of betting and gambling enters the picture, the nature of the game ceases to be of relevance. The common aspect of addiction and the desire to gain more and more looms large wherever staking money on an uncertain event is involved. When such is the case, there is no question of manifest arbitrariness since the States HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch have always been permitted to regulate or prohibit betting and gambling. l) The occasion for testing the impugned legislations on proportionality does not arise as activities encompassed under “betting and gambling” are in the nature of res extra commercium, and the plain reading of the two RMDC (supra) decisions also suggests that no one can claim a fundamental right in operating an activity which is extra commercium. m) Games of skill would be protected by the constitutional guarantee laid down under Article 19, but betting or wagering on any game, be it a game of skill, would not be entitled to receive any such protection, unless the Legislature creates an exception in favour of such betting on games of skill. n) The competence of the State to regulate certain activity also enables it to prohibit the same activity, subject to Part III of the Constitution, if applicable. The 2021 Amendment has not provided a sweeping definition or a “Midas touch”. It has merely brought every form of betting and gambling under its sweep, and for that the States are empowered under Entry 34 List II. In absence of availability of the protection of Article 19, total prohibition would not be hit by the test of proportionality. o) The phrase “gaming” cannot be said to be nomen juris. The phrase “gaming” is a statutory definition that can be altered according to the will of the Legislature. In no way can it be dependent on the element of chance alone. The definition of “gaming” is fluid and fluctuating across the states and different legislations. p) In terms of addiction, in terms of monetary losses and in terms of resultant widespread suicides respectively, online money gaming has a definite impact on the public. When such is the case, it has to be recognized that online money gaming has been disturbing the tranquility of the public by making betting and gambling more normalized and accessible. Therefore, public tranquility is breached and consequently, the States would have competence to invoke HCJ & CGRJ WP_24524_2024 & batch public order and seek to curb the mischief and restore public tranquility. q) The addiction and depression that stem from indulging in online money gaming and the frequent suicides that are reported would go on to indicate that this poses a widespread public health issue as well. r) The Tamil Nadu State Legislature relied on the report of the Justice Chandru committee wherein empirical findings related to the widespread harms of betting linked with online gaming have been discussed in detail. As such, the legislations are supported and backed by empirical data contrary to the assertion of the respondents.” 11. Learned counsel for petitioners are unable to deny that matter is indeed covered against petitioners in view of decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra). All writ petitions are thus dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs. Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of accordingly. LISA GILL, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No