Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Against Verdict Upholding State Power To Ban Betting On Online Rummy, Poker

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 28 October 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Not stated in source
Citation: Not stated in source
Statutes: Constitution of India — s.Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions against its verdict upholding the state's power to ban betting on online rummy and poker. The Court had held that the protection for games of skill under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule does not extend to betting on such games, which constitutes gambling.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The protection afforded to 'games of skill' under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India does not extend to 'betting on games of skill', which falls within the ambit of 'gambling' and can be regulated or prohibited by the State.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing online gaming platforms must advise clients that state governments retain the power to ban or regulate betting on online games, even if the underlying game is considered a game of skill. Litigants challenging such bans will face difficulty given the Supreme Court's clear stance.

Key Legal Takeaways

1States can ban betting on online rummy and poker.
2Games of skill protection does not cover betting on them.
3Betting on games of skill is considered gambling.

The Legal Issue The core legal issue concerned the scope of 'games of skill' under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, specifically whether the protection granted to such games extended to 'betting on games of skill'. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on this matter, and the present action involved review petitions challenging that verdict.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, reaffirming its earlier decision. The Court reasoned that while certain games like rummy and poker might be considered games of skill, the act of 'betting' on these games transforms the activity into a form of gambling. Consequently, the constitutional protection afforded to games of skill under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule does not encompass betting activities associated with them. This distinction allows state legislatures to regulate or prohibit such betting activities.

What Follows With the dismissal of these review petitions, the Supreme Court's verdict upholding the state's power to ban betting on online rummy and poker stands. This means that state governments are empowered to enact laws prohibiting or regulating betting on these online games, irrespective of their classification as games of skill. Online gaming companies and individuals involved in such betting activities must comply with state-specific regulations or prohibitions.