JUDGMENT SUMMARY: Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu And Anr
- DATE OF JUDGMENT:12/01/1996
- JUDGES: Justice Kuldeep Singh, Justice Hansaria B.L, Justice Majmudar S.B
- SUBJECT: The judgment revolves around “Gaming”,“Gambling” and “betting”.
FACTS:
The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition and Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974 alleging that it infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Indian Constitution:
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
- Article 19(1)(g):To practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
- Article 301: Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse Subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free.
ISSUES:
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition and Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974 is constitutionally valid?
- Whether horse racing is an act of betting and gambling or involves any substantial skills?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
TheMadras Race Club was a registered company which was involved in horse racing. The Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition and Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974abolished horse racing in Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved by the enactment of this legislation the petitioners initially approached the HC under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution stating that the Act violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). However, the Court upheld the validity of the legislation, hence this petition now stands before the SC under Article 32.
The petitioners contended that,
- Horse riding is a universally recognised sport. It involves a special skill to win a match which is not based on betting or gambling.
- It depends upon the pedigree of the horse, the ability of the horse and the rider, nature of the race, its current form etc.
- Out of the amount collected 75% goes to the winner as prize money whereas 20% is paid as tax to the State government and only 5% goes to the Club as commission.
- The petitioners referred to the case of State of AP v. K. Satyanarayana where the Court declared that the game of Rummy required a special skill and cannot be called as gambling or betting.
- They further referred the case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India wherein the Court held that, a business or trade will not be gambling or betting and will be provided protection under Article 19(1)(g) provided it involves “a skill” without which its performance would be impossible.
Rebutting the arguments, the respondents contended that
- Horse riding is a form of betting which involves a skill neither from the horse nor from the rider but from the better who has to keep a keen check over the horses to determine its capability by observing various matches, which is a pure skill that any better should possess.
- Further the State legislature reserves its authority under entry 34 of list II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to enact the 1974 Act.
Upon hearing the parties the Court came to a conclusion that for an act not be considered as betting or gambling and to enjoy protection under 19(1)(g) is must have a substantial degree of skill which makes it unique. Also, the Court was satisfied that, horse riding is one such sport which involves special skills of the horse as well as the rider. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of the HC and declared the law as unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION:
Any restriction imposed upon the fundamental rights of the citizens must be just fair and reasonable. Any unreasonable intrusion into these rights will be ultra vires of the Constitution, as in the present case horse riding which involves substantial skill was rightfully given protection under Article 19(1)(g).
