M/s City Soul Hospitality LLP vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

These petitions are being decided together as common questions of law on similar facts arise for consideration. For brevity, the facts are being noticed from CWP-15200-2026, which has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2026, Annexure P-7, passed by respondent no.3/Deputy Commissioner of Police, and directing the respondents not to interfere with the lawful business of the petitioner-firm in facilitating physical/offline games of skill, such as, poker and rummy, in accordance with law.

Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner has been incorporated as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) firm which has secured the premises located at plot no.83, Sector 56, More market, Gurugram, on lease for carrying out business of games of skill - rummy, poker, and any other such game. It is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, whereby permission to carry out this business has been deferred till issuance of notification by the Government under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 (for short ‘the 2025 Act’); the relevant part of the order reads as under:

In the second petition (CWP-20897-2026) also the permission to play these games has been deferred for the same reason.

Learned senior counsel contended that the business set up by the petitioners has nothing to do with gambling or betting, as both the games, rummy and poker, are games of skill where success depends upon one’s knowledge and effort and not chance/luck. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. S. Sathyanarayana, AIR 1968 SC 825, which specifically dealt with the game of rummy. And for the game of poker, he has referred to Report no. 276 of the Law Commission of India regarding ‘The Legal Framework: gambling and sports betting including in cricket in India’ of July, 2018.

Per contra, leaned State counsel contended that the games of poker and rummy have not been notified as games of skill under the provisions of the 2025 Act so far. The matter is under consideration with the Government and necessary steps are being taken for issuing the notification under Section 2 (1) (g) of the 2025 Act. These games may involve substantial element of chance, therefore, the petitioners are required to defer their business operations until regulatory clarity.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

Apparently, as on date, there is no bar to carry out commercial activity of physical/offline games of poker and rummy, for which the petitioners are seeking permission, nor has the permission been declined by the respondents. It has only been deferred vide impugned order dated 06.05.2026, till issuance of notification with regard to identification of games of skill as defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the 2025 Act. Relevant provisions of the Section are as under:

Apparently, clause (g) of sub-section (1) to Section 2 defines game of skill as a game where there is preponderance of skill over chance, and includes a game where success depends primarily on superior knowledge, training, and attention of the player, despite there being an element of chance. The element of chance has, therefore, not been excluded altogether. The proviso enables the State government to notify any game to be included as game of skill. This provision does not mandate the Government to compulsorily notify the games of skill in the State, but under the proviso it has the power to notify any game to be ‘included’ as game of skill. It would essentially mean that by issuing a notification any particular game can be classified as a game of skill, to be included in that category. Accordingly, in the absence of any requirement for the Government to compulsorily notify the games of skill, there appears to be no justification for denial of permission to the petitioners for physical/offline playing of games of poker and rummy which have preponderance of skill over chance, and success in these games depends upon superior knowledge, training, attention, experience, etc., irrespective of some element of chance being there.

These attributes of the game are apparent from the following observations in K. S. Sathyanarayana case, ibid., regarding the game of rummy:

The characteristics of game of poker have been examined by the Law Commission in its Report no.276 mentioned hereinbefore which is as follows:

All these requisite skills prima facie make the game of poker also primarily a game of skill, with some element of chance being present as in other games of cards like rummy. No contrary material has been cited by the respondents.

In this view of the matter, this Court finds no justification for the respondents’ decision to defer the grant of permission for commercial playing of the aforesaid two games - poker and rummy - to the petitioners for the reason the Government is contemplating issuance of notification concerning these games under Section 2(1)(g) of the 2025 Act. By issuing the notification the Government can only decide whether to include these two games in the category of games of skill; it may or may not eventually do so. If it does, the petitioners will be entitled to get the requisite permission, subject to complying with the laid down conditions, if any. And in case it does not, or the notification is not issued at all, as is the case at present, what are the consequences for the petitioners. There does not appear to be any restrain on the playing of games not included in the notification, as those would be assumed to be games of skill for the provisions of the 2025 Act, which does not contemplate or provide for any mechanism to regulate the activities relating to such games. It is also not the case that keeping in view the essential characteristics of the games, the same have been considered to be games of chance or betting, nor have the two been categorised under any other prohibited activity. Resultantly, in the present state of things, there cannot be any restriction on the petitioners to go ahead and facilitate playing of these two games, as deferring the permission amounts to placing an unreasonable restriction on their Fundamental Right to carry out the business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners can be permitted to run the business, subject to reasonable conditions till the Government considers the issue of regulating and/or permitting these games.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 are set aside, and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to carry out the business of facilitating physical/offline playing of games of poker and rummy, subject to the following conditions:

The permission to carry out business is subject to any decision that would be finally taken by the Government in the petitioners’ cases.

The petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the case file of connected matter.