The Madras High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on the petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu government's ban on online gaming, in so far as it concerns online poker and online rummy played with stakes (Junglee Games India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu). .Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram concluded his submissions on behalf of the State this afternoon before Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. .Brief rejoinder submissions were also made by the petitioners. Chief Justice Banerjee orally informed that a verdict is likely to be pronounced next week, on August 3, Tuesday. .Among those who led the arguments for various petitioners were senior advocates AM Singhvi, Aryama Sundaram, AK Ganguli and PS Raman. .Arguments in the matter had been heard afresh since July 5, given the change of government and consequent change of Advocate General from when the matter was heard before..Anti-vaxxers, contrary views of High Courts and more: The Madras High Court hearing in the Online Rummy ban challenge.Highlights of the final hearing today.The final leg of the hearing today saw the Court reiterate its earlier reservations regarding whether the State's online gaming ban would withstand the challenge in its present form. "I think it is better we throw it out, you better get a more intelligible legislation," Chief Justice Banerjee told the State during the course of hearing today. The Court questioned the State as to why it could not regulate such online games, instead of imposing a sweeping ban.The Court observed that the State appears to have branded online rummy and poker as games of pure chance. On the other hand, it was noted that the Supreme Court has held rummy to be (predominantly) a game of skill."Your provision is 'please dont indulge in gaming by playing poker or rummy or any other game in cyberspace', when rummy has been held to be a game of skill, other games may be games of skill," the Court orally observed.AG Shunmugasundaram responded by pointing out that the petitioners have not show any case laws which viewed rummy, poker or any other game as a game of skill when it is played on cyberspace or online. The Court, however, was skeptical if there was any difference between the virtual and physical play of games such as rummy, poker, chess, scrabble and the like, where it is the mental skill that is of more significance than physical factors. "Let us be reasonable sir. There are many games that depend on physical skill, hand eye coordination which may be necessary in Badminton, Table Tennis ... But when it is rummy, chess, any board game, even scrabble, the attributes of playing it physically and on the virtual mode are the same.. they do not involve any physical skill whatsoever, when they require only mental skill but skill nevertheless," Chief Justice Banerjee observed. "Any game played on cyberspace, there is no guarantee there won’t be any manipulation," Advocate General Shunmugasundram responded. Chief Justice Banerjee, however, queried why such potential manipulation could not be tackled through monitoring, rather than a ban. "Very good, then you regulate it. You have your representative being given access so he can snoop over everything," he said.The Advocate General, in turn, submitted that there are many things which cannot be controlled on cyber-space and that monitoring alone may not be a 100 per cent fool-proof measure. He went on to contend that the Supreme Court has ruled that the State can restrict activities under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution and that such restriction can also be by way of a ban. Cyberspace is totally different from a physical arena and vulnerable persons may lose their money on such virtual platforms, he added. The Court, however, remarked that the State may impose restrictions to protect the vulnerable sections if that is the issue. "You say vulnerable population loses money. Make a restriction. Licence, control, regulate, prohibit them, suspend their license … do whatever you want to regulate. But here you are completely prohibiting what seems to be a game of skill," the Chief Justice remarked. "What has been prohibited is losing money. When wagering and betting, participants lose money. In competitions, no one loses money ... Competition cannot be equated with wagering," the Advocate General went on to argue. Shunmugasundaram further explained that in wagering one may lose money while another gains. On the other hand, in competitions, one stands to win for their skill, and there is no loss.The Court, however, remarked that the issue appears much more complex. As the hearing wrapped up, the Advocate General suggested that the Court grant him leave to get instructions on whether the State would want to amend the law or correct any defects pointed out by the Court, particularly since there is public interest involved in the matter. The Court went on the conclude the hearing after hearing rejoinder submissions on behalf of the petitioners.