The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that physical games of skill such as poker and rummy cannot be prohibited under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, unless the State formally notifies them as such under Section 2(1)(g). The judgment affirms that absent such notification, regulatory action against physical gaming venues violates the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Maaya Gaming and Technologies Private Limited and M/s City Soul Hospitality LLP, operate physical gaming venues in Haryana offering games of skill, primarily poker and rummy. They seek a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State to conduct these activities without fear of police interference or criminal prosecution under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025. The petitioners contend that poker and rummy are games of skill, not chance, and thus fall outside the scope of the Act.
Key Facts
- The petitioners conduct gaming activities in physical premises, not online platforms.
- On 07.07.2025, the Court directed the State to respond to the petitioners’ representations seeking an NOC.
- On 13.10.2025, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Haryana, issued a communication (Annexure R-1) stating that no notification had been issued under Section 2(1)(g) of the Haryana Act to classify any game as a "Game of Skill."
- The Director General of Police, Haryana, had been requested on 28.05.2025 to submit a proposal listing games eligible for exemption as games of skill, but no such report had been received as of the hearing.
- The petitioners have faced repeated visits by police officials threatening criminal action under the Gambling Act.
- The Union of India enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (2025 Act), which defines "online money game" to include games played for fees, whether based on skill or chance.
Procedural History
- 07.07.2025: Court directs State to decide petitioners’ representations within a time-bound manner.
- 13.10.2025: Haryana Home Department issues communication confirming no notification under Section 2(1)(g) of the Haryana Act.
- 13.01.2026: Court takes note of the communication and grants time to file an additional affidavit.
- 23.03.2026: Final hearing held; State concedes that the 2025 Act applies only to online gaming.
- 13.02.2026: Notice issued by State authorities to petitioner in CWP No.6891 of 2026 (Annexure P-6).
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Poker and rummy are games of skill, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in Tilt Room Recreation Society v. State of Karnataka.
- The Haryana Act requires explicit notification to exempt games of skill; none has been issued.
- Police harassment and threats violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- The 2025 Act governs only online gaming; petitioners operate physical venues and are thus outside its scope.
For the Respondent (State of Haryana):
- No notification has been issued under Section 2(1)(g) of the Haryana Act to classify poker or rummy as games of skill.
- The 2025 Act applies to online gaming, and petitioners’ activities are not covered by it.
- No coercive action will be taken without due process under the Haryana Act.
- The petitioners’ request for an advance ruling is not maintainable in the absence of statutory provision.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek:
- A declaration that poker and rummy are games of skill and not gambling under the Haryana Act.
- A direction to issue a No Objection Certificate for conducting physical poker and rummy games.
- A prohibition on police interference or initiation of criminal proceedings.
- Protection of their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Legal Issue
Can the State prohibit physical games of skill such as poker and rummy under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, in the absence of a formal notification under Section 2(1)(g) classifying them as games of skill, and without following due process?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which established that rummy is a game of skill and not gambling under the Indian Penal Code. They cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Tilt Room Recreation Society v. State of Karnataka, which granted similar relief to a poker club. They argued that the Haryana Act, like its predecessors, requires a notification to exempt games of skill, and the absence of such a notification means poker and rummy remain outside the Act’s prohibition. They further contended that police threats and visits constitute an unlawful restraint on trade under Article 19(1)(g), especially since the Union’s 2025 Act explicitly applies only to online gaming.
For the Respondent/State
The State conceded that no notification had been issued under Section 2(1)(g) of the Haryana Act and that the 2025 Act governs only online gaming. It acknowledged that the petitioners’ physical operations are not covered by the 2025 Act. However, it argued that the petitioners’ request for an advance ruling was not maintainable under the law, as no statutory mechanism exists for such rulings in the Haryana Act. It assured the Court that no coercive action would be taken without due process and that any proceeding would follow the procedures prescribed under the Gambling Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioners were not seeking to operate online gaming platforms but physical gaming venues. The Union’s 2025 Act, which defines "online money game," was held to be inapplicable to the petitioners’ activities. The State itself conceded this point. The Court emphasized that the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, does not automatically classify poker or rummy as gambling. Section 2(1)(g) requires the State to issue a notification to exempt games of skill, and no such notification has been issued.
"In the absence of action taken by respondents, there is no question to express opinion."
The Court noted that the petitioners’ request for an advance ruling - though understandable given the climate of uncertainty - was not legally sustainable, as no provision in the Haryana Act permits such rulings. However, the Court also recognized the practical hardship faced by the petitioners due to police intimidation. It held that the State must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice before initiating any proceeding under the Gambling Act.
The Court further clarified that the mere existence of a law does not empower authorities to harass individuals without initiating formal proceedings. The threat of criminal action without notice or opportunity to be heard violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
- The State shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners without issuing a formal notice and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025.
- The authorities shall pass a final order on the notice dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-6) within six weeks from the date of filing the reply.
- Any prior order or threat of action shall stand suspended until the fresh order is passed.
- The petitioners are at liberty to argue before the authorities that their activities are not covered by the Gambling Act.
- The State shall ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice in all proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Physical Games of Skill Are Not Automatically Illegal
- Practitioners representing gaming venues must now argue that unless a State issues a notification under its gambling law’s "games of skill" exemption clause, poker and rummy cannot be prosecuted as gambling.
- The burden lies on the State to prove that a game falls within the prohibited category; it cannot rely on presumption.
- Police cannot conduct raids or issue threats without initiating formal proceedings under the relevant statute.
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable in Regulatory Enforcement
- Any action against a business under a regulatory statute must follow the procedure prescribed by law, including notice and hearing.
- Threats of criminal action without formal proceedings violate Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21.
- Courts will not entertain requests for advance rulings unless expressly permitted by statute, but will intervene where rights are being violated through extrajudicial pressure.
State Laws Cannot Override Union Laws on Jurisdictional Grounds
- The Union’s 2025 Act governs online gaming; State laws govern physical gaming.
- A State cannot use its gambling law to regulate activities that fall under a Union statute unless there is clear legislative overlap or conflict.
- Legal advisors must carefully distinguish between online and physical operations when advising clients on gaming compliance.
