The Bombay High Court on 25 September 2024 directed the respondents in a public interest litigation seeking to ban online rummy in Maharashtra to file short affidavits on two points: whether the petition is maintainable, and how online rummy is a game of skill rather than a game of chance1. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhayay and Justice M. M. Sathaye heard the matter1.
The petition, titled GANESH RANU NANAWARE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS (CRPIL/17/2024 [Criminal]), asks the State to ban the online game and asks Google not to provide servers to Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle1. The petitioner argues that rummy is a game of chance and therefore amounts to gambling, and that the apps are "online gambling, which is a banned offense under the Public Gambling Act, 1867 the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and the Bombay Wager Act"1. The petition also states that lakhs of people are addicted to these apps, that they are dangerous to the public at large, and that celebrities advertising them have fans who become addicted, lose money and commit suicide1.
At the hearing, the respondents argued that the PIL is not maintainable and asked the Court to decide that issue before issuing notices, saying various other High Courts have already held that rummy is a game of skill and not a game of chance1. The Court's direction was recorded as:
"Let a short affidavit be filed by the respondents on the issue of maintainability and also stating as to how online rummy is a game of skill and not a game of chance."
The petitioner had also filed Interim Applications seeking to implead Sachin Tendulkar and other celebrities who have advertised for rummy1. The Chief Justice questioned the application, saying "What is all this? Don't dilute the petition. Instead of espousing the cause, you are giving a dent to it" and asking whether it was moved to get the petitioner's name in the newspaper, adding "Let there be a debate whether rummy is a game of skill or game of chance"1. The petitioner then sought to withdraw the application, and the Court granted liberty to withdraw it, saying "IA is withdrawn as not pressed"1.
What it means for players
Online rummy in Maharashtra continues to operate while the petition is pending. No ban has been ordered, and no date has been set for the next hearing in the reports of the 25 September proceedings1. The case turns on a classification that already shapes how rummy for money in India is treated: if courts treat it as a game of skill rather than a game of chance, state gambling statutes are generally read not to cover it. Players in Maharashtra, including visitors to Mumbai and Pune, face no change in the legal position from this hearing alone. The petition names two operators, Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle, and asks that Google stop providing servers to them, a step that would affect access to those apps rather than to rummy generally1. The wider gambling laws in Asia and the state-by-state position in India are unchanged by the order.
What happens next
The State of Maharashtra, Google, Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle are to file short affidavits on maintainability and on rummy as a game of skill1. The Court has not yet ruled on maintainability, and no deadline for the affidavits or next hearing date appears in the report of the proceedings1.
