Poker and rummy are games of skill, not gambling: Allahabad High Court
Sep 05, 2024
Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], September 5 : In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that poker and rummy are games of skill, not gambling.
The judgement was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjeev Shukla on Wednesday, on a petition filed by DM Gaming Private Limited, which challenged an earlier order from the Agra City Commissionerate denying the company permission to operate poker and rummy as a gaming unit.
DM Gaming Private Limited had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Commissionerate of Agra, on January 24, 2024, which denied the company permission to operate poker and rummy as a gaming unit.
The petitioner argued that the denial of permission was based solely on the presumption that these games might disturb public peace and harmony or be considered gambling.
Citing precedents set by the Supreme Court and other High Court rulings, it was contended that poker and rummy are games of skill, not gambling.
The petitioner further argued that the refusal to grant permission was based on the assumptions that such games could disturb peace and harmony or they may be considered gambling.
Citing the decision of the Supreme Court and other orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court said that poker and rummy are games of skill and not gambling.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether poker and rummy could be classified as gambling or recognized as games of skill.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the denial by the DCP was based on conjecture, with no factual basis for the assumption that allowing such games would disturb peace or encourage gambling. It was argued that such assumptions do not constitute a valid legal ground for refusing permission.
The bench stressed that the authorities should thoroughly examine the matter and not deny permission based on conjecture alone. The court ruled that refusal of permission on the basis of mere speculation by the concerned officer cannot be sustained.
The court further said that refusal to allow recreational gaming activities must be supported by concrete facts presented by the officer. Granting permission to operate poker and rummy gaming units would not prevent the authorities from monitoring the premises for illegal gambling activities.
The court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
