2RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS…………………………………………………………. 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………… 5

STATUTES REFERRED……………………………………………………………… 5

JOURNALS REFERRED………………………………………………………………5

BOOKS REFERRED………………………………………………………………….. 5

LIST OF CASES………………………………………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….7

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………….11 – 25

WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION 106TH AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID ?.................................................................................11 - 17

1.1. MANIFESTLY ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL

1.2. VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III

1.3. RULE OF LAW

1.4. ON ENTRY 26 OF THE STATE LIST OF THE CONSTITUTION

WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE ONLINE GAMING ACT, 2022 VIOLATES

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?......................................................................................... 17- 21

2. 1.THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

VIDHISTHAN

2.2. THE ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

 3RESPONDENT

VIDHISTHAN
2.3. THE ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF VIDHISTHAN

2.4. THE ACT AGAINST THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

PREVALENT IN VIDHISTHAN

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT WITH REGARDS TO INTERPRETATION OF

THE DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 HAD RIGHTLY
DECIDED THE SAME IN THE CASE OF STATE OF ANAMUDI v. MASS MEDIA COMMUNITY INC
(2012)……………………………………………………...21 - 25

3. 1.THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER IN UNDER CONCURRENT LIST, AUTHORISINNG

BOTH CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE

3.2. AS PER ARTICLE 254 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATE ACT LIES REPUGNANT TO
THE CENTRAL ACT

3.3. THAT THE WORDS IN ARTICLE 254 OF THE CONSTITUION ARE INTENDED TOLAW
MAKING NOT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LAW……………………………

PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………… 26
 4RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS ACTUAL TERMS

UOI Union of India
SCC Supreme court cases
SC Supreme court
Sec. Section
Pvt. Private
Pg. Page
Ors. Others
No. Number
AIR All India rank
& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
B/W Between
Co. Company
F.R. Fundamental Rights
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e.., In other words
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
VPC Vidhisthan Penal code
WP Writ petition
u/S Under section
u/A Under Article
 5RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES
• RMDC (Mysore) Pvt Ltd v State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 594 (599) : 1962 (3) SCR 230

• Kesvananada Bharti v. state of kerala

• M. J. Sivani and Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others. 4564 of 1995

• Nirod Kumar Palai, Sarojini Mishra, et.al., “Gambling v. State : A Study of Problems and Prospects of

Gambling Industry in India under Globalization Regime” XIV International Economic History

Congress, Helsinki (2006)

• J .S. Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism (Bantom Classic, New York, 2008).

• Tiwari, Santosh Singh, “Why Nitish says no to liquor”, Indian Express, New Delhi, 31/05/2018

• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 : AIR 2010 SC 3196.

• Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, (1996) 1 SCC 130 : AIR 1996 SC 1113; See

also, Bobby Art International, etc. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon., (1996) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 1996 SC 1846; and Shri

Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 191 : AIR 1993 SC 1267.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

• Pathumma v. State of Kerela, AIR 1978 SC 771.

• Orient Weaving Mills Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 98.

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

• O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812.

• All india gaming federation v. state of karantka

• K.R.Laksham v. Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 2001 SC 595; Arun Kumar v. Union of India,

(2007) 1 SCC 732; Naresh Kumar v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 540.

• State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.

• Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2814.

• Security Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 65

 6RESPONDENT

• A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyam Chettiar v. Muttuswami Goundan, 1941 SCC OnLine FC 1

• Security Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 65

• Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45]

• Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71

• National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 SCC OnLine AP 245

• Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1960) 1 SCR 332;

• Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1

• Welfare Assn., A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358

• State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201

• ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (2002) 9 SCC 232

• M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431;

• Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 562

• Deep Chand v. State of U.P., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 8

• Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P., 1956 SCR 393

• Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh, 1939 SCC OnLine FC 3

• State of Rajasthan v. Vatan Medical & General Store, (2001) 4 SCC 642, 653 (para 12)

• Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum, (1995) 4 SCC 718

• Adilakshmi Ammal, In re, 1941 SCC OnLine Mad 100;

• P.M. Bramadathan Namboodripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board, 1955 SCC OnLine Ker 138

State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104

STATUTES
• PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT, 1987
• THE INFORMATION TECNOLOGY ACT, 2000
• THE INFORMATION TECNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES) RULES, 2011
• THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
• THE TAMIL NADU GAMING ACT, 1930
• THE POLICE LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
 7RESPONDENT

DATABASES
• SCC ONLINE
• MANUPATRA
• LEXIS NEXIS

BOOKS & COMMENTARIES

• LAW COMMISSION REPORTS – REPORT NO. 276 (JULY, 2018)
• LEGAL FRAMEWORK: GAMBLING AND SPORTS BETTING INCLUDING IN CRICKET IN
INDIA
• PRECINCTS OF ELECTRONIC SPORTS, BETTING AND GAMBLING by
Siddharth Batra and Archna Yadav.
 8RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
vidhisthan under Article 32 r/w Article 139A of the constitution of vidhisthan impugned the
violation of fundamental rights and transferred petitions from various High Courts which
were clubbed by the supreme court.

Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writsin the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

139A - Transfer of certain cases

(1) Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High
Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or an application made by the
Attorney General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial
questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases
pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of law return any
case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such questions to the High Court
from which the case has been withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof,
proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice,
transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other
High Court
 9RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Around 75 years back the republic of vidhistan gained its independence from the British
colony and is now governed by a written constitution, comprising a diversified population
divided into the lines of religion, ethnicity, caste, language, and culture. In recent years,
there has been a tremendous increase in online gaming platforms among the young
population which ultimately led to the nature of betting as it involves chance more than skill.
An attempt to ban such activities has also been undermined by the state governments but
high courts have declared it unconstitutional as violative of freedom of trade and profession.
In the month of September 2021, the central government introduced “The constitution 106 th
amendment” in Entry 34 of Schedule VII which specifies “Betting and gambling provisions
which are subject to List III” and pursuant to this “The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act,
2022’ was enacted which defined the terms such as ‘online gambling,’ ‘online game’ and
‘online game of chance’. It covers online games such as poker, rummy, and fantasy leagues as
a punishable offence. To study more on the effect of online games government relied on the
Law Commission Report which states that games have affected the concentration of
students and lead to financial distress, indebtedness, and gaming disorders recognized as
diseases by the World Health Organisation.
A private association, “The society of online gamers (SOG)” challenged the Constitutional
Validity of the Central Act and also of the 106th Amendment Act, 2021.
Since 1700 on the Arabian sea coasts, the Wadiyar dynasty ruled the State of Harit Pradesh
which is located southwest of Vidhistan including vast ecological biodiversity, arable land, an
educated population, and a world-class administrative system. In the month of October
2021, the state legislature of Harit Pradesh enacted a law regulating online gaming after
which several provisions of state acts became incompatible with the central act but
continued for implementation as according to section 1, the central government didn’t
broaden the scope of the central act’s application.
The validity of the state act was challenged by the “Nvideon games” an online gaming
platform before the high court wherein the reasoning of the supreme court given in the case
of “State of Anamudi v. Mass Media Community Inc. (2012)” was applied and decided in the
favour of the petitioner.
The state petitioned the supreme court to review the ruling in the case, asserting that the
interpretation of the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 inaccurate and had been
confused with the doctrine of occupied field. As a result, the decision must be reconsidered.

Both the petitions filed by the “Society of Online Gamers” and “Nvideon games” have
been clubbed by the supreme court and scheduled for a final hearing.
 10RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION 106TH AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE ONLINE GAMING ACT, 2022 VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT WITH REGARDS TO INTERPRETATION OF

THE DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 HAD RIGHTLY
DECIDED THE SAME IN THE CASE OF STATE OF ANAMUDI v. MASS MEDIA COMMUNITY INC
(2012).
 11RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Constitution 106th Amendment Act, 2021 is constitutionally valid?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the Constitution 106th
Amendment Act, 2021 which has made, inter alia, following changes, in Entry 34 of
List II of Schedule VI has made in order to facilitate the bringing of the law regulating
online gaming platforms that involve betting and gambling so as to control financial
distress, indebtedness, and effects on the youngsters1. Therefore, Legislature has
competency under article 368 to amend such laws which are immoral and illegal by
way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution.
II. Whether The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022 violates Fundamental
rights?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the the Regulation of the Online
Gaming Act, 2022 doesn’t violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III
of the Vidhistan’ s constitution as due procedure has been established by Law with
the Principles of Just, Fair and Reasonability are made out by defining the various
terms related to online gaming and punishable offences wherever found suitable to
secure the society from deleterious effect of online gaming. 2

III. Whether the Supreme court with regards to Interpretation of the doctrine of
repugnancy Under Article 254 had Rightly decided the same in the case of State of
Anamudi V. Mass Media Community Inc. (2012).

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble that the subject matter of the case comes under
the Concurrent List (List III) empowering both Central & State Government to make laws
with respect to any matter specified in List III. The State Act lies repugnant to the Central Act,
and hence as per Art. 254, the Parliament law prevails in case of any repugnancy between
the Central and State Laws. Therefore, no error was made in the interpretation of Doctrine

1 Law Commission Reports — Report No. 276 (July, 2018) Legal Framework : Gambling and Sports Betting
Including in Cricket in India
2 Ibid
 12RESPONDENT

of Repugnancy in the case of State of Anamudi v. Mass Media Community Inc.

(2012).ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. Whether the Constitution 106th Amendment Act, 2021 is constitutionally valid?

It is humbly contended that the constitution 106th amendment, 2021 was made in
order to facilitate the bringing of the law regulating online gaming platforms that
involve betting and gambling so as to control financial distress, indebtedness, and
effects on the youngsters3.

Gaming is a pursuit of happiness that falls within the contours of liberty and privacy
of an individual but wherever there has been a deleterious effect on society the
legislature has plenary powers to control the same and this amendment is
constitutionally valid for procuring the same.

1.1. Legislative competency to enact

According to Constitutional experts, the Constitution provides for a

quasifederal structure, entailing that it is federal in form but unitary in
spirit. Legislative powers are distributed between the Centre and the States
under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, on various subject matters
enumerated in three legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule The power of
the State governments to make laws on betting and gambling can be traced
to Entry 34 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the
power to impose taxes on betting and gambling is included in Entry 62. The
two are separate powers, so that by surrendering its power to regulate
prize competitions, under Article 252(1), a State Legislature does not lose
its power to impose a tax on such competitions.4. Thus, the States have

3 Law Commission Reports — Report No. 276 (July, 2018) Legal Framework : Gambling and Sports Betting
Including in Cricket in India
4 RMDC (Mysore) Pvt Ltd v State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 594 (599) : 1962 (3) SCR 230
 13RESPONDENT

exclusive power to make laws on this subject including the power to

prohibit or regulate gambling, etc. in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Power to amend the constitution are specified into Article 368 under Part
XX of the Constitution of Vidhistan. The Constitution can be amended by
way of addition, variation, or repeal of any provision in accordance with the
procedure laid down for this purpose but the basic structure of the
constitution shouldn’t be destroyed or altered. 5

In H. Anraj v. State of Maharashtra 6 , the Supreme Court observed: the

subject ‘Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government
of a State’ has been taken out from the legislative field comprised by the
expression “Betting and gambling” and is reserved to be dealt with by
Parliament. Since the subject ‘Lotteries organised by the Government of
India or the Government of a State” has been made a subject within the
exclusive legislative competence of Parliament, it must follow, in view of Act
(sic) Art. 246(1) and (3), that no legislature of a State can make a law
touching lotteries organised by the Government of India of (sic) or the
Government of a State… This, as we said, is but recognition of the prevailing
situation under the Constitution. The Constitutional position cannot be
altered by an act of the State legislature.

Directive Principles of State Policy framed by the makers of the constitution

provide the States a blueprint to formulate new laws while keeping in mind
the spirit of good governance. Article 38 of the Constitution of India
provides that the State shall secure a social order for promoting the welfare
of its people by securing justice, social, economic and political. Article 39
of the Constitution directs the State to provide adequate means of
livelihood to every citizen and to make sure that the economic system does
not lead to unfair accumulation of wealth, rather the ownership and
control of the resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub
serve every class of society. It is also expected that the State oversees that

5 Kesvananada Bharti v. state of kerala

6 AIR 1984 781
 14RESPONDENT

children and youth are protected against exploitation, both moral and
material.

This Constitutional 106th Amendment Act,2021 is quite essential to

maintain public health, specifically having regard to the fact that the
menace of cyber-crime had reached epic propositions and revenue growth
at CAGR of 22.1 percent from about USD 600 million in FY18 to USD
1.6 billion per FY 23 as lead to great interest of investors into dream sports
and fantasy leagues7 and as a result to all of these games are in the nature
of betting as it involves chance more than skill. Therefore, the Amendment
Act, which criminalized wagering, betting, or risking money on the
unknown result of an event was definitely required to deal with the
“evolving situation arising from the ill-effects of online gaming”8 and the
estate has an exclusive authority under the constitution to legislate in the
field of betting and the main purpose of this amendment is to arrest the
addiction of gambling and ensure that citizens do not rush to their doom
by falling prey to such addiction.

Narayana Aiyangar v. K. Vellaichami Ambalam 9 explained that the term

wager. This case was related to the chit fund the court ruled that chit fund
transactions needed to be regulated in the interests of the public and to
avoid perpetration of fraud on poor and innocent persons.

In M.J. Sivani10 case , the Supreme Court, while determining the issue of the
legality of prohibition on video games, under Section 2(7) of the Mysore
Police Act, 1963, observed that, even if video games were considered to be
games of skill, the outcome could be manipulated by tampering with the
machines. Therefore, the court refused to grant protection to these games

7 Para 2 of moot proposition

8 Law Commission Reports — Report No. 276 (July, 2018) Legal Framework : Gambling and Sports Betting
Including in Cricket in India
9 AIR 1927 Mad 583

10 M. J. Sivani and Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others. 4564 of 1995
 15RESPONDENT

In the case of Gaussian Networks Private Limited v. Monica Lakhanpal and

State of NCT 11, an application was filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 before a District Court in Delhi, seeking the Court's
opinion whether participants be allowed to play a game of skill for stakes
with the intention of making profit. It was held that playing skillbased
games for money in the virtual space, renders them illegal. The degree of
skill that is involved in playing these games in physical form cannot under
any circumstances be equated with games played online. The Court held
that since there was a possibility for manipulation of outcomes by cheating
and collusion in online gambling, it can be assumed that the degree of
chance would also increase. The court echoed the observations made by
the Supreme Court in the M.J. Sivani case.

To curb online betting and gambling, authorities rely on the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (Technology Act). Section 67 of the Act, reads as:
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted
in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the
prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt
persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read,
see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on
first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five
years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

Further, this may be supplemented by section 69-A of the Technology Act,

which empowers the Central government to direct its agencies and/or
intermediaries to “block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for
access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received,
stored or hosted in any computer resource. In doing so, the IT Act is
supported by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules,

11 Order of the Delhi District Courts dated November 19, 2012 in Suit No. 32 of 2012.
 16RESPONDENT

2011 . The Intermediaries Rules, which have been framed under Section
87(2)(zg) read with Section 79(2) the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Rule 3(2)(b) thereof requires ‘intermediaries’ like internet service
providers, network service providers, search engines, telecom operators
etc. not to host or transmit any content that inter alia relates to or
encourages gambling. Further, Rule 3(4) requires intermediaries to remove
content relating to or encouraging gambling within thirty-six hours, either
“upon receiving actual knowledge or on being notified to do so by the
appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or
communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource
controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act…”

1.2. Morality and betting12

Illegal activities, which cause damage to the society viz. trade in contraband
substances, and activities like gambling and betting, which cause damage
to individuals but whose social impact varies13 are generally prohibited by
the government.

J.S. Mill in his statement remarked:

A person should be free to do as he likes in his own concerns; but he ought
not to be free to do as he likes in acting for another, under the pretext that
the affairs of another are his own affairs. The State, while it respects the
liberty of each in what specially regards himself, is bound to maintain a
vigilant control over his exercise of any power which it allows him to possess
over other14.

In the case of Guru Prasad Biswas & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors 15,
the Calcutta High Court remarked that betting and gambling activities affect

12 Law Commission Reports — Report No. 276 (July, 2018) Legal Framework : Gambling and Sports Betting
Including in Cricket in India
13 Nirod Kumar Palai, Sarojini Mishra, et.al., “Gambling v. State : A Study of Problems and Prospects of Gambling

Industry in India under Globalization Regime” XIV International Economic History Congress, Helsinki (2006).
14 J .S. Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism (Bantom Classic, New York, 2008).

15 (1998) 2 Cal LT 215. 16

AIR 1959 SC 781.

 17RESPONDENT

a person's morality and therefore infringe the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , stipulates that consideration

or object of an agreement would be lawful unless regarded as immoral, or
opposed to public policy, by the Court. In the case of Gherulal Parakh v.
Mahadeodas Maiya & Ors.16, while examining the scope of Section 23 the
Supreme Court observed: The word 'immoral' is a very comprehensive
word. Ordinarily it takes in every aspect of personal conduct deviating from
the standard norms of life. It may also be said that what is repugnant to
good conscience is immoral. Its varying content depends upon time, place
and the stage of civilisation of a particular society. In short, no universal
standard can be laid down and any law based on such fluid concept defeats
its own purpose. The provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act indicate
the legislative intention to give it a restricted meaning.

While the main argument in favour of regulating the betting and gambling
is revenue generation through taxation on its proceeds, the question
remains whether one can choose revenue over morality. In this regard, it is
pertinent to note that in the State of Bihar the revenue collection from
liquor increased from Rs.500 crore in 2005 to Rs.4,000 crores (approx.) in
2014-2015. Yet, taking note of the immorality associated with the
consumption of liquor and its ill-effects on Society, the State of Bihar put a
State-wide ban on the sale, consumption and production of liquor in
201516.

Other States such as Gujarat, Nagaland, Manipur and Lakshadweep too,

guided by the unwritten principles and notions of morality prevalent in
their States and taking into consideration the ill-effects of consumption of
liquor in an uncontrolled manner, have prohibited the sale of liquor to

16 Ravish Tiwari, Santosh Singh, “Why Nitish says no to liquor”, Indian Express, New Delhi, 31/05/2018 18
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 : AIR 2010 SC 3196.
 18RESPONDENT

protect the vulnerable sections of the society, in spite of huge revenue

losses.

'Immorality', per se, cannot be a ground to challenge the Constitutional

validity of enactment as morality is a subjective concept. It should also be
noted that morality and criminality are not co-extensive18. Morality is a
ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on an individual's freedom 17.
It is said that the law remains in a state of flux while defining morality, for
it is required that the law must continuingly evolve to accommodate the
needs of changing time so in the present case of Vidhistan an amendment
act regulating online games to curb betting, and gambling activities which
involves chance more than skill was necessary.

Therefore, in the light of above arguments, it is submitted that the Constitution 106th
Amendment Act, 2021 is constitutionally valid.

II. Whether The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022 violates Fundamental rights?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court

That the Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022 doesn’t violates the
fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Vidhistan’ s constitution and
the arguments in favour of the same are as follows;-

That if any law is interfering with the personal liberty of the individual, it must
satisfy the triple test as laid down in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

17Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, (1996) 1 SCC 130 : AIR 1996 SC 1113; See also,
Bobby Art International, etc. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon., (1996) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 1996 SC 1846; and Shri Raghunathrao
Ganpatrao v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 191 : AIR 1993 SC 1267.
 19RESPONDENT

India18 which are as follows: -

i. It must prescribe the procedure;
ii. The procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred under Art. 19 of the Constitution which
may be applicable in given situation; and
iii. It must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14 of
theConstitution

2.1. There is Procedure Established by Law with the Principles of Just, Fair and
Reasonability within the Amendment.

As the tests propounded by Art.14 pervades Art. 21 as well, and the law should be just
fair and reasonable not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive19 As the amendment passed
by the legislation is prescribed by the procedure and the Due procedure was followed
and there has been no violation of fundamental rights. There are no inherent
procedural lacunas as to preventive action by the state. The preventive penal laws are
given legal recognition under the Constitution of India. So, these provisions cannot be said to
be in violation of Articles 21 and 22. 20 Further, the counsel would like to content that the
online games such as rummy, poker and fantasy leagues are punishable offences as it involve
more chance than mere skill and involves betting and gambling activities which causes
:unsustainable debt resulting in suicides, financial distress and ruined many families; gaming
disorder, recognized and included by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Thus banning of
online games in the case of security of the State is valid.

It is humbly submitted that certain reasonable restrictions which depends upon the nature of
rights and the circumstances calling for the restriction21 and that to can be imposed on an
individual in case of security of the state as mentioned under Art. 19(2) of the COI. As the law
providing the externment or internment 22 or for the security of the State is not an
unreasonable restriction, as the necessity of the externment in the same light as a law of

18 (1978) 1 SCC 248

19 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
20 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

21 Pathumma v. State of Kerela, AIR 1978 SC 771.

22 Orient Weaving Mills Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 98.

 20RESPONDENT

preventive nature.23Hence the fundamental right of expression shall yield against the security
of the state. The function of the police is for prevention and detection of crime and hereby
central government by restricting online games was with the motive to curb betting and
gambling activities that causes financial distress was fundamentally valid.

2.2. It Withstand with Test Under Art. 19 Which Are Applicable to The
Present Situation.
It is humbly contended that when a restriction is imposed in the interest of
the public order, connection of restriction with the public order must be
shown to be rationally proximate and direct.26 And hereby, there has been
rationality in the decision to curb betting and gambling activites.
In the case of State of Karnataka 24 it was contended that : the games of chance
being res extra commercium, the games of skill fall within the field of ‘Trade
& commerce’ under Entry 26 of State List. The fundamental right inter alia of
trade & business is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and therefore, the same
is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(6).

In a challenge laid to the validity of any legislation on the ground of violation

of Fundamental Rights inter alia guaranteed under Article 19(1), on a prima
facie case of such violation being made out, the onus would shift to the State
to demonstrate that the legislation in question comes within the permissible
limits of the most relevant out of clauses(2) to(6). Generally when exercise of
Fundamental Right is absolutely prohibited, the burden of proving that such a
total prohibition on the exercise of right alone would ensure the maintenance
of general public interest, lies heavily upon the State.

And in the present case of vidhistan the protection under Article 19 (1) (g) can’t
be asserted as the online game25 offered betting activities which makes it no

23 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. 26

O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812.
24 All india gaming federation v. state of karantka

25 Section 2(k) ‘The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022’

 21RESPONDENT

more of the game of skill but it has been played for the financial or other
stakes26 which in result incurred unsustainable debt resulting in suicides and caused
financial distress which ruined many families .

2.3. The legislation has been made with reasonableness which passes the test of
Article 14 of the Constitution
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court That when a provision is challenged
as the violative of Art.14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy that is
underlying the statue and the object intend to be achieved by it having ascertained
the policy and the object of the act, the court has to apply the dual test which are
namely
i. Whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons.
ii. Whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with
itsavowed policy and objects.27

That the State has the power of classifying the persons for the legitimate
purposes 28 and the legislation is competent to exercise its discretion and make
classification29 in this present case the classification that is done by the government of the
persons are valid as in the matter of the security of the State it is done and the mere production
of inequality or prima facia not having the intelligible differentia is not enough to prove the
legislation as the violative of Art.1430 . There has been prohibition of online games 31 and
online games of chance with money or stakes that are specified under schedule I would
fall under punishable offence are completely based to prevent the financial distress
and addiction which resulted in suicides. Thus, there are no procedural irregularities, the
restriction imposed or the intelligible differentia that is there is in accordance with the

26 Section 2(h) ‘The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022’

27 K.R.Laksham v. Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 2001 SC 595; Arun Kumar v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 732;
Naresh Kumar v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 540.
28 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.

29 Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2814.

30 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.

31 Section 7 of ‘The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022’

 22RESPONDENT

reasonableness mentioned under Art.14 and Art.19 of the Constitution thus this amendment
is not violative of Art.14 and Art. 21 and holds the constitutional validity.

Thus, ‘”The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022” pursuant to the constitutional
106th amendment ’ is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 , 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of Vidhistan.

III.Whether the Supreme court with regards to Interpretation of the doctrine of

repugnancy Under Article 254 had Rightly decided the same in the case of State of
Anamudi V. Mass Media Community Inc. (2012).

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:

3.1 That the subject-matter is under Concurrent List, authorising both Central and State
Government to legislate.

The subject-matter of the case, that is the “Chits” is provided under Entry 7 of List III of the
Constitution, and hence by virtue of Art. 246(2) of the Constitution, both the Parliament &
State Legislature are empowered to make laws with respect to any matter specified in List III
of Schedule VII.

Article 246 of the Constitution does not provide for the competence of Parliament or the State
Legislatures but merely provides for their respective fields.32 It deals with the distribution of
1egislative powers as between the Union and the State Legislatures, with reference to the
different Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Hence, the Union Parliament has full and exclusive
power to legislate with respect to matters in List I and has also concurrent power to legislate
with respect to matters in List III, The State Legislature on the other hand, has exclusive power
to legislate with respect to matters in List II, minus matters falling in Lists I and III and has
concurrent power with respect to matters included in List III.33The Parliament has power to
legislate on the entries mentioned in List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule and in case of a
conflict between a State Law and a Parliamentary Law under the entries mentioned in List III,

32 Security Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 65

33 A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyam Chettiar v. Muttuswami Goundan, 1941 SCC OnLine FC 1
 23RESPONDENT

the Parliamentary law will prevail. It does not follow that the Parliament has a blanket power
to legislate on entries mentioned in List II as well. Thus, the Parliament has not the supreme
right to legislate over any area under Article 246(1) of the Constitution.34 Art. 246 reflects the
nature Federal system, adopted by the Constitution.

Both Parliament and State legislature have concurrent powers of legislation with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in List III. The words “notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (1) and (2) of Article 246(1) and the words “Subject to” in clause (1) and (2) in Article
246(3) lay down the principle of Federal supremacy, viz., in case of inevitable conflict between
the Union and State powers, the Union power enumerated in List I shall prevail over the State
power as enumerated in List II and III and in case of any overlapping between List II and III, the
latter shall prevail.35

In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd v State of Bihar 36 , the Court considered the scope and
limitation of the legislative powers of the Union and State Legislature.

Article 246 provides for the distribution, as between the Union and the States, of the
legislative power which is conferred by Article 245 and 246, therefore must also be read as
“subject to the other provisions of the Constitution”.
There is close relation between the Article conferring legislative powers and Entries in the
Legislative Lists. The various Entries in the three Lists are not “powers” of legislation, but
“fields” of legislation.37 They are not the source of legislative empowerment. Competence to
legislate has be traced to the Constitution.38The power to legislate is given by Article 246, and
other articles of the Constitution.39 The Entries in the Lists are mere legislative heads and are
of an enabling character. They are designed to define and delimit the respective areas of
legislative competence of the Union and State Legislatures.40 They neither impose any implied
restrictions on the legislative power conferred by the articles nor prescribe any duty to
exercise that legislative power in any particular manner.41 The language of an Entry should be

34 Security Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 65

35 DD Basu: Commentary on the Constitution of India ,9th ed, Vol 12, Pg 76 of 150
36 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45]

37 Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 71.

38 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 SCC OnLine AP 245

39 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 SCC OnLine AP 245

40 Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1960) 1 SCR 332; Girnar Traders (3) v. State of

Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1

41 Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1960) 1 SCR 332
 24RESPONDENT

given the widest meaning fairly capable to meet the need of the Government envisaged by
the Constitution. Each general word should extend to all matters which can fairly and
reasonably be comprehended within it. Narrow interpretation should be avoided and the
construction adopted must be beneficial and cover the amplitude of the power.42

It is well settled that for the purpose of determining the extent of the field occupied by a
Parliamentary Legislation, it is not necessary to find out as to whether any rule has been
framed in terms of the provisions of the Act or not.43 Although a liberal construction of a State
entry is desirable, but at the same time the court should guard against extending the meaning
of the word beyond a reasonable limit. The courts while interpreting statutes should avoid
construction whereby the State legislature would be encroaching upon the areas covered by
the Parliamentary Act indirectly which they could not do directly. An interpretation which
tends to have the effect of making a particular entry subject to any other entry, though not
stated in the entry deserved to be avoided unless that be the only way of interpretation.44

Entry 7 of List III, Schedule VII mentions “Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts
of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to
agricultural land.” The term ‘‘contracts’’ in this Entry is to be widely interpreted. Such wide
meaning has to be assigned to the said term as would make the entries meaningful and
effective.45 The word ”contract” also includes Chitties, which is the subject-matter of the case.

3.2 That as per Art. 254 of the Constitution, the State Act lies repugnant to the Central Act.

Repugnancy is defined as an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of sa

legal instrument, as per Black’s Law Dictionary.

A State law may be “repugnant” in any of the following ways46—

i. When there is direct conflict between the two provisions.47

ii. Where there is no direct conflict, but is evident that Parliament intends its legislation
to be an entire and exhaustive code48, relating to the subject then it shall be taken as Union

42 Welfare Assn., A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358

43 State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201
44 ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (2002) 9 SCC 232

45 Welfare Assn., A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358

46 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431; Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC

562
47 Deep Chand v. State of U.P., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 8

48 ibid
 25RESPONDENT

law replacing the State law.49iii. Even where the Central act is not exhaustive, repugnancy
may arise if it occupies the same field as the State Act.50iv. The repugnancy which is alleged
must exist in fact and not depend merely on a possibility.51
v. When a question of repugnancy arises, every effort should be made to reconcile
the two enactments so as to avoid their being repugnant to each other and to
ensure that the two really operate in different fields without encroachment. 52 vi. The
doctrine of covered/occupied field can be applied only to the entries of the List III
(Concurrent List).53

Art. 254 deals with inconsistency in laws made by the Parliament or State Legislatures. It
comes into effect in case of conflict between both laws. Clause 1 states that if a State law
relating to a concurrent subject57 is “repugnant” to a Union law relating to that subject, then,
whether the Union law is prior or later in time, the Union law will prevail and the State law
shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void.
Here, in the present case, since both State & Central Law exists in the matter of “Chits”,
therefore the Central Law prevails. Also, as provided under Art. 254(2), that if the President
assents to the State Act, the law shall prevail, which was not obtained in the instant case.
Further, the Proviso of the same provides supremacy to Parliament to add, amend, vary or
repeal such law by the Legislature.

3.1 That the words in Art. 254 of the Constitution are intended to law-making, not the
commencement of the law.

The word “made” in Art. 254 brings out the result that it is the making of the law by the
Parliament and the State Legislature as the decisive factor and not its commencement.58 The
principle of the supremacy of the Parliament, the distribution of legislative powers, the
principle of exhaustive enumeration of matters in the three lists are to be seen in the context
of making of laws and not in the context of commencement of laws.

It has been held that in view of the definition in Art. 366(1), “existing law” in the present Article
cannot be restricted to refer to Central laws only, but would also include Provincial laws

49 Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P., 1956 SCR 393

50 ibid
51 ibid

52 Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh, 1939 SCC OnLine FC 3

53 State of Rajasthan v. Vatan Medical & General Store, (2001) 4 SCC 642, 653 (para 12) 57

Deep Chand v. State of U.P., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 8

 26RESPONDENT

existing at the commencement of the Constitution, provided they relate to a matter now
enumerated in the Concurrent List.59 Hence, if a State law relating to a Concurrent subject is
repugnant to an existing Provincial law, the State law must be void unless it is made in
accordance with the provisions of Article 254(2).60

Hence, the repugnancy arose with the Central law becoming law. The making of law involves
a demarcated legislative procedure which culminates with the assent of the President as per
Art. 111 of the Constitution, or the Governor in case of law by the State Legislature, as per Art.
200 of the Constitution.

Since, there exists a Central law related to Chits, the State Act impliedly stands repealed &
void to the extent of repugnancy, as per Art. 254(1) of the Constitution.

Therefore, in the light of above arguments, it is submitted that there is no error made by
the Court in the interpretation of Doctrine of Repugnancy in the case of State of Anamudi
v. Mass Media Community Inc. (2012).

58 Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum, (1995) 4 SCC 718

59 Adilakshmi Ammal, In re, 1941 SCC OnLine Mad 100; P.M. Bramadathan Namboodripad v. Cochin
Devaswom Board, 1955 SCC OnLine Ker 138
60 Adilakshmi Ammal, In re, 1941 SCC OnLine Mad 100; P.M. Bramadathan Namboodripad v. Cochin

Devaswom Board, 1955 SCC OnLine Ker 138; State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute,
(1995) 4 SCC 104

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of above arguments, precedents, provisions and in the interest of the

justice, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble court to declare/hold/adjudge:

• That the Constitution 106th Amendment Act, 2021 be held constitutionally valid.

• That ‘” The Regulation of the Online Gaming Act, 2022” pursuant to the

constitutional 106th amendment be held non-arbitrary and not violative of Article 14,

19 and 21 of the Constitution of Vidhisthan.

• That there is no error made by the court in the interpretation of Doctrine of

 27RESPONDENT

Repugnancy in the case of State of Anamudi V. Mass Media Community Inc. (2012).

And/Or to pass any other order, decree, direction or any other relief as the court may deem

fit in the interest of fairness, justice and equity.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

~ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS