CJ questions how the State contends rummy is a game of chance
The first bench of the Madras High Court (MHC) comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and PD Audikesavalu heard a batch of petitions filed by online gaming companies challenging the online rummy ban act.
Madras High Court (R)
CHENNAI: Chief Justice of the Madras High Court drew questions about how the State contends that online rummy is a game of chance when rummy is predominantly a game of skill and adjourned the case to August 21 for further hearing.
The first bench of the Madras High Court (MHC) comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and PD Audikesavalu heard a batch of petitions filed by online gaming companies challenging the online rummy ban act.
Advocate General (AG) R Shunmugasundaram for the State argued that there is no skill involved in online rummy or poker, there is evidence of gambling in the online rummy, and the owner of the portal makes a profit out of the game. It is one of the games played for the stakes which is illegal, said the AG and contended that the target audience of online rummy is youths and uneducated people, it leads them to addiction. The State reported multiple suicide and financial loss victims due to online rummy after the perusal of the consequences it created, the government enacted the law to ban online rummy, he added.
Amit Anand Tiwari, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Tamil Nadu to represent the State before the Supreme Court, commenced his arguments supporting the AG's submissions. He contended that online gaming companies are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) so regulation of online rummy is impossible, considering that the State completely prohibited online rummy.
Countering the submissions, senior counsel Satish Parasaran contended that the State is confusing with the features of online rummy, they are trying to cast it as a demon with complete fallacy, but it is a harmless game.
Chief Justice (CJ) intervened and asked how the companies were making a profit, to which the counsel replied that the companies were charging 10 to 15 percent from each game. The CJ questioned that the companies are not involved in the game but sharing profit from the players. The counsel argued that is how the companies can get profit since they are not charging for entry.
After perusal of the online rummy ban act the CJ questioned the AG that the Supreme Court has already held that rummy is a game of skill and how the State contends it is a game of chance. The CJ further observed that the schedule in the act is not properly worded and posted the case to August 21.