The Supreme Court of India has released Part 3 of its judgment in the appeals brought by the State of Tamil Nadu against Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. and the All India Gaming Federation, covering the State's powers over online skill gaming. The judgment, dated 27 May 2026 and reported as 2026 INSC 594, was signed by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan1. The Court granted leave to appeal and said the issues in the connected matters were the same and were heard together1.
The appeals arise from two Madras High Court judgments. In its judgment dated 03.08.2021, the High Court "struck down Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (for short, "the 2021 TN Amendment Act") as ultra vires" on the view that "betting" under Entry 34 List II cannot be divorced from "gambling"1. In its judgment dated 09.11.2023, the High Court "Struck down the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022/2023 ("the TN Online Gambling Act 2022/23"), including poker and rummy as prohibited games of chance" and "Read down Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) to exclude rummy and poker from "online games of chance""1. The Court also recorded the constitution of the Justice Chandru committee on 10.06.2022, its report dated 27.06.2022, and "the enactment of the TN Online Gambling Act 2022/23 on 07.04.2023"1.
The judgment reproduces the High Court findings in the Karnataka batch, where a common judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 14 February 2022 struck down provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 as unconstitutional1. The Madras High Court held that "The business of organizing or offering games of skill is a protected occupation under Article 19(1)(g)"1. On the inclusion of rummy and poker, the High Court found "the inclusion of rummy and poker in the Schedule as online games of chance is based merely on presumption, is unreasonable and contrary to binding precedent, and therefore the Schedule must be set aside"1.
The Court set out its preliminary view on the High Court readings of the legislative entry:
"We are of the view that the said finding returned by the High Courts in the impugned judgments deserves to be set aside"
The judgment also records the Court's view that "it is not correct to say that even "betting" on games of skill would be out of the competence of the State Legislature to legislate upon"1. The penalties at issue in the Tamil Nadu provisions included "imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both" under Section 3-A, and the amended Section 11 provided that "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, Sections 3A and Sections 5 to 10 shall apply to games of mere skill, if played for wager, bet, money or other stake"1. The pre-amendment Section 11 read: "Nothing in sections 5 to 10 of this Act shall be held to apply to games of mere skill wherever played"1.
What it means for players
The judgment part records submissions and frames issues; it does not by itself change what is legal in Tamil Nadu or Karnataka today. The Court's preliminary view is that the High Court findings on state competence deserve to be set aside, which points toward state legislatures having wider power to legislate on betting connected to games of skill, including online rummy and poker played for stakes. Until the Court's conclusion is given effect, the position on the ground in those states remains as the High Courts left it. Players in other Indian states should note that the case concerns state legislative competence, not a nationwide ruling on online gaming. For background on how skill and chance are treated across the region, see Games of Skill vs Games of Chance in Asian Gambling Law and Gambling Laws in Asia: What Is Legal in 12 Jurisdictions. For the Indian framework, see Can I Gamble in India? and Where Gambling Is Allowed in India, State by State.
What happens next
The judgment is divided into parts, and the part released records submissions, frames eight issues for consideration, and sets out the Court's preliminary view. The analysis and conclusion sections are indexed in the judgment1. No date for the next hearing or for a final ruling has been reported.
