New Delhi – Documents released from a court ruling regarding online gambling have clarified a number of issues regarding the current online gambling legislation in Delhi. Judge Ina Malhotra reviewed a case put forward by a Mr Anuj Gupta requesting permission to operate skill a based gambling website.
Mr Gupta is proposing to set up a website that allows players to play each other at Chess, Billiards, Rummy, Texas Hold 'Em Poker, Bridge and Snooker. In return for facilitating the grouping of players, the software on which the games will be played and also the payment processing required, Mr Gupta's proposes to charge a 5% fee.
This sort of fee is highly competitive within the global gambling industry and represents a covering of the costs involved in hosting such an online gaming parlour. However, throughout the document Judge Malhotra is very dismissive of these activities.
The document regularly dismisses these skill based games to be tantamount to real gambling and it uses phrases such as 'these should be curtailed' with regards to these gambling and betting websites. What the document cannot escape however, is that games of skill played for money online are 100% legal within India.
The conclusion of the document says this. Indeed, unless cash gambling on non-skill games occurs on a website then it can in no way be accused of wrong doing. In paragraph 34 the document states There is no specific legislation banning such activity wagering on games of skill online.
Another topical issue addressed is that of asking whether poker is a game of skill. Here, despite the evidence put forward from leading academics such as Stevin Levitt and an entire mathematics department at Harvard University, the judge again failed to see how poker was a game of skill.
It epitomises the damagingly conservative nature of the current political and legislative conditions India finds itself in. Conceding that games of Golf, Bridge, Rummy and Chess are games of skill the document refuses to accept that poker is game of skill. By using poor logic regarding the method by which gambling companies profit from poker and also by drawing tenuous comparisons to US law Judge Malhotra gives her opinion that poker is not based on skill.
Once again, however, she finds herself without a legal leg to stand on and concedes that only if an individual state outlaws online poker can it be deemed illegal. This issue is representative of the confusing and diluted state of gambling law in India.
As usual we see that state laws are conflicting, confusing and that despite the obvious convictions of the judges they have very little power regarding online gambling legislation. This case, through it's faults and the evident impotence of the judge, demonstrates the need for the creation of clearly defined laws on online gambling.
At present we are faced with a sprawling mass of poorly thought out state laws, which are built on case by case, leaving us with endless sub clauses and footnotes. This makes life difficult for judges and makes it easy for the lawyers of gambling firms to justify their position in the Indian grey market.
A well thought through federal set of laws for online gambling is well overdue in India. Across the globe countries are legislating online gambling so that it is properly regulated and taxed. India meanwhile continues to confuse the issue, leaving the black market booming, the grey market in limbo and the white market suffering.
5 Comments
