M.J. SIVANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 17-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M.J. SIV ANI AND ORS. 
A 
. - ) 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
B 
~I 
Constitution of India-Arts 19 ( l)(g), 19(6) and 21-Right to trade or 
~ 
business or avocation-l'ower to impose reasonable restrictions-Test of 
reasonab/enesr-Nature of business and its indelible effect on public interest 
are importallt elements-Trade or business attended with danger to com- c 
munity-May be totally prohibited-Whether regulation of video games vio-
fates fundamental right to trade or business or avocation or right to 
livelihood-Held, No-Discretion confemd on licensing authority under the 
Licencing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusemellts (Bangalore City) 
Order, 1989-Not arbitrary, uncanalised or without any guidelines. 
D 
_I 
Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 193o-Madras City Police Act-<Jaming-
Definition of-Whether video game is a game within definition of 'gamin~ 
Whether video games require to be regulated. 
Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusemems (Bangalore 
City) Order, 198'>-f'ara +-Refusal to gram licence-Requirement to record E 
reasons-Personal hearing to be granted when. 
Delegated Legislation-l'artly good and partly bad legislatiotr-Cannot 
J 
be struck down as a whole unless invalid part is inextricably interconnected 
with the valid. 
F 
The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, exercising the power under . 
the Licencing and Controlling of places of Public Amusements (Bangalore 
City) Order, 1989, called upon the appellants to obtain licences under that 
order. The appellants challenged his power audjurisdiction by filing writ G 
petitions. Dismissing the petitions, the single Judge of the High Court 
held that video games is a game covered by Bangalore Order, the appel· 
- i 
lants were required to get licence thereunder to play the video games and 
It did not violate their fundamental right under Arts. 19(l)(g) and 21 of 
the Constitution. The Division Bench while upholding the view of the single 
I 
Judge held that the Madras City Police Act, 1988 and the orders of the H 
329 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A Tamil Nadu Government is GOMS No. 166·0 dated 18·1-1993 and the 
allied, placed reasonable restrictions on the right lo carry on video games 
.. 
and II did not violate Arts. !9(1)(g) and 21; that video games are games 
requiring licence under the Act and the Orders; that the survey of working 
or the video games by a comittee of high level police officer and a practicing 
B 
advocate found the mal·practices committed In conducting the games; that 
the ban imposed on the named games as games of chance and permitting 
the rest of the games lo be games of skill was In public Interest; that the 
conditions or licence are not arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore, the 
, 
, 
action or the Commissioner was within the power under the Act or the 
order. These appeals by special leave bad been filed against the Division 
c Bench judgment of the High Court. 
The point raised In these appeals was whether the video games 
attract the relevant orders and Is a game within the definition of 'gaming' 
defined under the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 or the Madras City Police 
D Act or or the Mysore Act Etc. 
The appellants contended that It does not lntolve collection, solicit· 
\, 
Ing, receiving or distribution or winning of prl:ies nor does it Involve 
wagering, there Is no element of betting or wagering In the business 
E 
conducted by the appellants while operating video games, the definition of 
gaming, .therefore did not get attracted to video gaming; that the space 
occupied by the machines used for video gaming being very small, It was 
neither like a theatre nor a public place, therefore, It Is not a common 
gaming house defined under the respective Acts; that the games conducted 
In the respective shops of the appellants did not involve of any money 
F transaction except collection of non refundable charges for tokens for 
•,, 
playing game, the player was rewarded on winning as many number of 
tokens as be could obtain by skill and such token be so gained gave him 
another chance to play and the tokens were not exchangeable for any cash 
or money, the games were conducted only for amusement and to pass off 
G 
the time, the essential requirement to bring any game within Uie definition 
of gaming was completely lacking, the video games were, therefore, neither 
Illegal nor unjustlfted, the appellants were not required to obtai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.