Anti-vaxxers, contrary views of High Courts and more: The Madras High Court hearing in the Online Rummy ban challenge

Monday's Madras High Court hearing in petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu government's ban on online rummy saw interesting comments being made on the extent to which a State can exercise paternalistic authority, including when it comes to mandating vaccination (Junglee Games India Private Limited and anr v. State of Tamil Nadu). .Senior Advocate AM Singhvi today argued that a ban on such online games for persons above 18 years is a form of unreasonable, external, paternalistic value judgment that cannot be allowed, and which falls afoul of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.."Experience shows, in gambling, you tend to get addicted. the more you think there is a chance to recover, the deeper and deeper you fall. If State wants to address it, it perceives that to be ruinous for its residents, is it something we can interfere with?", asked Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee.."Not only can, but should interfere. Otherwise, paternalism will take over liberalism," Singhvi responded..He pointed out further that there a lot of self-harming activities that people choose to engage in, right down to the consumption of caffeine. If a paternalistic approach is followed and such matters are left to the subjective moral sense of someone else, that will be the end of Article 21 (personal liberty) and free choice, he contended. This is not an approach that has worked in actual practice, he added..On the other hand, Singhvi pointed out that there are other self-injurious activities that may harm other people. In this regard, he took the extreme example of the anti-vaxxer movement in the US, where he observed that there were many who asserted that they can resist getting vaccinated as it involves an intrusion by the government into one's liberty."But this issue is easily answered as not taking the vaccine would cause harm to others," he explained..This led Chief Justice Banerjee to recall a recent Madras High Court order he had authored, where the Bench had expressed doubts over whether a person has a right to refuse to take COVID-19 vaccination. .[COVID-19] Doubtful if "right to refuse" vaccine can be exercised when larger public health comes into play: Madras High Court.The Chief Justice further observed that another High Court, however, has expressed that forced vaccinations violate fundamental rights.."We have prima facie expressed a view, but some other High Court has expressed that it is a violation of Fundamental Rights," Chief Justice Banerjee said, referring to a recent Meghalaya High Court order..Singhvi was quick to point out that a person could violate another's fundamental rights if vaccination is refused..Recounting the Tort law principle that the one person's right to swing his arms in any direction ends where another's nose begins, Chief Justice Banerjee responded,"Exactly! It is like how far you can stretch your hand. You can stretch up to neighbor's nose (but cannot swing to touch the nose)."."Your swing stops where other man's nose starts," Singhvi concurred, adding, "How much more can your Lordships say it is an intrusion to stop me from betting? In that case, no betting on any activity can be allowed.".In the course of his arguments, Singhvi also referred to there being no prohibition on more noxious activities like smoking and consumption of alcohol, while also admitting that he is a teetotaller himself. ."There are any number of bettings. Can you say it is per se noxious? Have you banned liquor? Other noxious activities, smoking?", he argued. .Singhvi also highlighted that alcohol sale attracts huge revenue for the State. "Drinking is the only ironical expression. It is Constitutionally viced. But, barring one or few states, the highest earner and fully licensed," he pointed out. .On this note, Singhvi further argued that there are State-sponsored lotteries being permitted. In addition to the Court's queries, Singhvi has also asserted that the mere addition of stakes to a game of skill cannot make it a game of chance or attract a valid ban. Earlier arguments asserting that online rummy is predominantly a game of skill and thus not liable to be banned, were also reiterated.."There can be no game of cards that is completely skill. How you deal out the cards is chance. That in life is called destiny. In cards, it's called chance," he had occasion to explain, while pointing out that this alone will not make the game a game of chance. .As he concluded his arguments, he added that online rummy is not a scourge to pass the test for a valid ban. In any case, rummy is not as high a scourge as is liquor, smoking and lotteries, all of which are permitted and revenue made off them, he added. .The hearing will continue tomorrow afternoon. Singhvi is expected to conclude his arguments tomorrow. .The Court today also intimated that it would hear the challenge to the ban on online poker after it has heard all the petitions challenging the online rummy ban. .[Online games] No doubt children are addicted to phones, but courts cannot intervene based on personal sense of morality: Madras High Court