Is online rummy a game of chance or skill? Andhra Pradesh High Court orders State to set up committee to decide

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to form a committee to examine the manner in which online rummy is played with the aim to determine whether it is predominantly a game of skill or game of chance [Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd v State of Andhra Pradesh]..A bench comprising Justices C Praveen Kumar and K Manmadha Rao passed the order while hearing a plea challenging an amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 as per which even playing a game of skill with stakes, would attract penal provisions. .While the court agreed that physical rummy is a game of skill, it opined that there was not enough material to determine whether online rummy is a game of skill or chance. “Therefore, when there is no legal evidence available on record to show the manner in which the online rummy is played, unlike physical rummy, it is difficult to hold that online rummy satisfies the requirement (of game of skill)," the Court observed. .Considering the lack of clarity, the State was asked to constitute a committee consisting of judicial, independent technical and non-technical members, two people representing the platform operators, a police officer of the rank of director general and any other member representing the government to submit a report within four weeks. “This exercise in our view is necessary for the reason that all the above issues raised for consideration would depend upon the manner in which Online Rummy is played [namely whether it is game of skill or game of chance].”.The petitioners in the case argued that before the amendment to the Act any game of skill, wherever played, was exempted. However, after a recent amendment, this exemption was removed.This amendment was challenged as unlawful, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.The petitioners also submitted that games of skill are not only protected under the Constitution but also as per the judgment of the Supreme Court case of RMD Chamarbaugwala v Union of India which held that games dependent on the exercise of skill can only be regulated but cannot be banned. .However, the State argued that the amendment was made with a view to regulate virtual games involving betting, gambling or any game involving such activities. Further, the State said that as per the statistical data, most of the people using online platforms are either unemployed or persons with limited means. In this regard, it was stated that there are several instances where people have resorted to death by suicide or crimes in order to overcome the financial burden from having lost beyond their means.It was also pointed out that the State is competent to make laws, either to prohibit betting or gambling or to regulate it according to its socio-economic requirements. .On examining the submission and case law at length, the bench observed that it was clear that games of skill and games of chance have distinct characteristics. Further, the parliament would fail if it sought to criminalise prize competitions involving games of skill. “Protection under Article 19(1)(g) is given only to such of those games where element of skill predominant element of chance,” the Court said.Nonetheless, the High Court went on to clarify that the prohibition can be imposed for maintaining public order if it is not a game of skill..Following these observations, the Court was of the opinion that there was not enough material to determine whether online rummy was a game of skill or a game of chance. “Though, there is enough material in the form of judgments to show that Rummy played physically is a “game of skill” but no material except the petition and reply averments made by both sides along with screenshots to show that Online Rummy is also a “game of skill”/or “game of chance”.”.In light of this, an order was made for the committee to examine the nature of the game. The case will be heard in four weeks after the committee’s report is placed on record. .Senior Advocates Sajan Poovayya and CV Mohan Reddy appeared for the petitioners. Advocate General S Sriram and Special Government Pleader C Sumon appeared for the State. .[Read Order]