A division bench comprising Justice R Subbaiah and Justice C Saravanan, before whom the plea moved by Junglee Games India Private Ltd came up for hearing, refused an interim stay as sought for and instead posted the plea for further hearing to December 21 after directing the State to file its response by then.

Senior Advocate PS Raman, appearing for Junglee, submitted that the company has been running online rummy across the country for over a decade and when it is considered legitimate in other parts of the country, it cannot be banned as illegitimate in Tamil Nadu.

However, pointing out that Andhra Pradesh and Kerala had also banned it, Raman said: “Since 1968, the Supreme Court (SC) has made it clear that rummy is a game of skill and not a game of chances and hence cannot be banned as gaming/gambling.” Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi also contended that when rummy can be played physically in clubs, the same cannot be banned online. He also submitted that rummy cannot be equated to three cards.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted that besides teenagers, those in the age group of 25 to 30 are losing their entire earnings by playing such online betting games.

Rummy might be a game of skill but when it is played for stakes it becomes gambling, Senior Advocate AL Somayaji appearing for the State argued.

The plea contended that the petitioners are only providing an online platform for people to play rummy, which is a game of skill and protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and would not tantamount to gaming/gambling. The plea also cited an SC order which held: “If even a scintilla of skill was required for success, the competition could not be regarded as gambling in nature.” The ordinance promulgated on November 21 amended the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930, Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, banning betting in cyberspace using computers and any other communication device.