The Karnataka government has moved Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment of February 14 striking down the law that prohibited and criminalised betting on and playing games of skill including online games [State of Karnataka vs All India Gaming Federation]..The High Court had struck down certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 which had prohibited online gaming activities. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit had, however, said that nothing in the judgment shall be construed to prevent enactment of an appropriate legislation in accordance with the Constitution..The State government in its appeal has contended that the High Court did not notice that the Amendment Act was necessary to maintain "public order" and "public health" especially with regard to the fact menace of cyber crime has reached epic proportions and that police had registered 28,000 such cases across the State in the last three years. .The State in its appeal filed through advocate Shubhranshu Padhi submitted that the legislation which was struck down, in no way prohibited or sought to control a game of skill which could be suitably pursued by an appropriate person or entity..Further, the State government submitted that the High Court "gravely erred" in applying the test of proportionality by striking the law on account of violation of Article 19. The Amendment Act enacted on October 5, 2021 had banned wagering or betting, including in the form of tokens valued in terms of money paid before or after the issue of the same. It had also banned virtual currency and electronic transfer of funds in connection with any game of chance.The maximum punishment for violations under the Amendment Act was imprisonment for three years and a penalty upto ₹1 lakh.The petitions challenging the Act before the High Court had claimed that games of skill, irrespective of whether they involve the risk of losing money, do not amount to wagering or betting and thus, cannot be prohibited.It was argued that the State lacked legislative authority to pass the Act, which was contrary to precedent laid down by the apex court, and was violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 301 of the Constitution.The High Court had then proceeded to strike down Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Act.