IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3518 OF 2007All Kerala Online Lottery DealersAssociation .... Appellant(s) VersusState of Kerala & Ors. ....Respondent(s)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3519 OF 2007, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3520 OF 2007,WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 641 OF 2007 and WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233 OF 2010 J U D G M E N TR.K. Agrawal, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 3518-35201) These appeals are directed against the common final judgment andorder dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos. 2011, 2012 and 2235 of 2005 wherebythe High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein againstthe judgment and order dated 27.07.2005 passed by learned single Judge ofthe High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 14495, 16063 and 19582 of 2005.2) Brief facts:(a) The State of Kerala, by notification dated 13.01.2005, issued inexercise of the power conferred by Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation)Act, 1998, (in short ‘the Act’), prohibited the sale of all computerizedand online lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines,terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold through internet in theState with immediate effect and declared that Kerala shall be a free zonefrom online and internet lotteries.(b) By a subsequent notification dated 27.01.2005, the State of Keraladecided to prohibit the sale of all lotteries organized, conducted orpromoted by the State as well as by every other State Government in theState of Kerala with immediate effect and declared that the State shallhereafter be a Lottery Free Zone.(c) The State of Kerala, in partial modification of the notification dated27.01.2005, issued a subsequent notification dated 22.04.2005, permittingthe sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every StateGovernment including the State of Kerala and the prohibition imposed on thesale of computerized and on-line lottery tickets organized, conducted orpromoted by every State Government continued to remain in force declaringthe territory of the State of Kerala to be online, internet andcomputerized lotteries free zone.(d) Being aggrieved by the notification dated 22.04.2005discriminating between the paper lotteries and online lotteries, the AllKerala Online Lottery Dealers Association, State of Sikkim and one Sreekalaand others filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 19582, 14495 and 16063 of 2005respectively before the High Court.(e) A learned single Judge of the High Court, by judgment and order dated27.07.2005, dismissed the writ petitions.(f) Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, thepetitioners therein preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 2011, 2012 and 2235 of 2005before the Division Bench of the High Court.(g) The Division Bench, by a common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006,dismissed the appeals.(h) Against the said order, the appellants have preferred these appealsby way of special leave before this Court.Writ Petition (C) Nos. 641 of 2007 and 233 of 2010(a) One Bibhash Karmakar-the petitioner herein has filed the abovepetitions in public interest alleging that the States of Sikkim, Nagalandand Goa are running lottery business contrary to the provisions of the Actwhich is detrimental to the society as a whole.(b) This Court, by order dated 27.11.2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 641 of2007, directed the State to explain as to whether the State of Sikkim isrunning lottery business contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of theAct. In response to the above, the State Government filed an affidavitdated 10.12.2009 before this Court denying all the irregularities asclaimed by the petitioner herein and cited various provisions of the Act aswell as the Sikkim Online Network Lottery Rules, 2001 to show that thelottery business in the State is in consonance with the pre-existing rulesand regulations.(c) This Court, by order dated 21.06.2010, tagged Writ Petition (C) No.233 of 2010 with Writ Petition (C) No. 641 of 2007.3) Heard the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for theparties and perused the records. Since a common question of law and factsarise in these appeals and petitions, they are being disposed of by thiscommon judgment.Points for Consideration:4) The sole question for consideration before this Court is whether theState Government can discriminate between the paper lottery and onlinelottery in pursuance of the provision of Section 5 of the Act.Rival Submissions:5) Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before thisCourt that online lottery is also a lottery, as defined under Section 2(b)of the Act. So, if the State Government intends to prohibit the same, ithas to prohibit all the lotteries whether paper or online. The selectiveprohibition of the sale of online lottery tickets is impermissible, in thelight of Section 5 of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in B.R.Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and Others (1999) 9 SCC 700. The distinctiondrawn by the State Government between paper lottery and online lottery isdiscriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Learned senior counsel further contended that the impugned notification isvitiated by mala fides. It was further alleged that the State Governmentis being controlled by the paper lottery mafia and under its influence thesale of online lottery tickets has been prohibited. The State Governmentdoes not have the competence to issue the impugned notification. Thoughthe State Government is competent to legislate on lotteries by virtue ofItem 34 of List II concerning betting and gambling, the power to legislateon lotteries organized by the Government of India or the Government of aState is the exclusive preserve of the Parliament by virtue of Entry 40 ofList I of the Seventh Schedule. So, the State Government, which isincompetent to legislate on lotteries run by other States, has no power toissue the impugned notification. The State Government, without legislativecompetence, has ventured to prohibit online lottery which is totallyfraudulent and colourable exercise of the power.6) Learned senior counsel for the appellants further pointed out thatthe contention that online lottery was not in the contemplation of theParliament or the Court, cannot be accepted. The Act has to be interpretedto adapt it to the changing times. According to learned senior counsel,the Parliament was well aware about the growing advancement of science andtechnology and the use of electronic media in future days to come and,therefore, when it defined ‘lottery’ under Section 2(b) of the Act, itincluded also the online lottery or internet lottery which may come intoexistence in future. It was further submitted that the provision containedin Section 5 of the Act would empower the State Government to prohibit thesale of tickets of all the lotteries and it cannot be restricted only toonline or internet lotteries. He further submitted that if it is to betaken that the online lottery is a class of lotteries for which the StateGovernment is empowered to prohibit then it is only the Parliament whichcan classify the same and the State of Kerala has no power to do so.According to him, the Central Government framed the Lotteries (Regulation)Rules, 2010 (in short ‘the Rules’) under sub-section (1) of Section 11 ofthe Act and defined online lotteries under Rule 2(e) of the Rules that toofor the first time in the year 2010, therefore, the State Government had noright or jurisdiction to prohibit the online lottery in the year 2005. Theprinciples laid down in B.R. Enterprises (supra) will apply to all types oflotteries and a judgment of this Court cannot be ignored merely by sayingthat it failed to consider some point or other.7) Learned senior counsel further contended that this Court, in B.R.Enterprises (supra), has read down Section 5 of the Act, to save it fromthe vice of unconstitutionality, emanating from conferring unbridled poweron the State, which may be termed as abdication of the essentiallegislative function, by failing to provide guidelines for the exercise ofthat power. In the said decision, in paragraphs 84 and 87, it was held asfollows:“84. In Section 2(b) lotteries are defined to be a Scheme for distributionof prizes by a lot or chance. This definition itself recognizes that evenin State lotteries the prizes are to be collected by chance without anyskill, hence gambling in nature. Section 3 prohibits that no Statelotteries can be organized without the condition stipulated under clauses(a) to (k) of Section 4. Section 4 provides the conditions to be compliedwith by the State lotteries. To initiate any State lottery it is left tothe policy of each State, for this Act is silent. The only control is, incase it decides, then it must follow the conditions as laid down underSection 4. Next comes Section 5 which is subject matter of challenge, thedelegation of power to the State to prohibit the sale of lottery ticketsorganized by every other State. If a State desires not to subject itspeople to the lottery gambling, it has no power to restrict lotteriesorganized by other States. It is to remove this mischief that power isconferred through delegation to the States to do it in terms of their ownpolicy. By virtue of this, now the State Government can prohibit sale oflottery tickets of every other State within its territory. Next, Section 6seeks strict compliance with Section 4. Under this the Central Governmentmay prohibit any State lottery which is being conducted in contravention ofthe conditions as laid down under Section 4 or Section 5. Section 7 showsthe rigour of this Act by making it a penal offence as against all, whoviolate the provisions of this Act, be it is Head of the Department of theGovernment or the agent, promoter or trader to be punishable with two yearsrigorous imprisonment. Section 8 makes such an offence cognizable and non-bailable. Similarly, Section 9 deals with offences committed by thecompanies. Section 10 entrusts the Central Government power to givedirections to the State Government for carrying into execution theprovisions of this Act, Rule or Order. Sections 11 and 12 are the rule-making power entrusted to the Central and the State Governmentsrespectively. Section 13 repeals the Ordinance. Thus, the whole Act makesclear that the subject it is dealing with is gambling in nature. Theobject of the Act is not to control the policy decision of each State tostart or to close its lotteries, but to regulate it in case a State decidesto run its own lottery through modalities and conditions laid down therein. Emphasis of the whole Act is to abide by the conditions strictly if youwant to run a lottery. Thus, regulation is through conditions to eliminateeven the remotest possibility of malpractices by providing stringentmeasures for its compliance. Perusal of the Act reveals, the scheme of theAct is limited in its application, and it admits the subject it is dealingis gambling in nature. As we have said, the decision to collect or not tocollect revenue through State lotteries is exclusively within the policydecision of the State and for this, neither the Union nor Parliamentinterferes nor is there any indication under the Act. Thus, the questionwhich remains is, if any State decides that it does not want any lotteriesbut if it feels helpless as having no jurisdiction over the lotteriesorganized by other States, what is the way out ? This can only be done byParliament or by entrusting this power on such State desiring so, which hasbeen done through Section 5. In this background, for this helplessness ofa State as recorded in Anraj case-I [(1984) 2 SCC 292] the remedy isprovided by entrusting this power on the State under the impugnedprovision. This helps such State to achieve its objective of lottery(gambling) free zone within its territory. A well-concerned remedy. Nextquestion is what could have been the guideline? If State lotteries aregambling and it cannot be terms as ‘trade and commerce’ at common parlancefor any free right under the Constitution. Such right though recognizedunder Article 298, so other States may continue to enjoy till prohibited byvalid law, and if any State wants within its State lottery-free zone andfor which the power is entrusted to such State, it cannot be said in thissetting and background and the nature of the subject that such a delegationis of its essential legislative power. The only guideline necessary insuch delegation is to see that the State does not pick and choose one Statefrom the other, which guideline is already provided in this Section. Itprovides that such a ban could only be if it is applied to every otherState. The only residual field of attack so far as this delegation couldbe, which has been attacked in this case, that the State could on one handban lotteries of every other State but run its own lotteries. It is arguedthat while a State bans lotteries of other States not to permit anygambling activity in the public interest as a policy but this very publicinterest is flouted by having lotteries of its own. It is true that unlessthis provision is read down to mean a State can only ban lotteries of otherStates when it bans as a policy its own lotteries it is bound to besubjected to the vagaries as pointed out and on deeper scrutiny it may notsuccessfully stand. But, by reading down the provision, which has to beread that it is only that State which decides lottery-free zone within itsState can prohibit lotteries of other States clearly provides the guidancefor the exercise of such a power. It is inbuilt and inherent in theprovision itself in view of the scheme of the Act and nature of subject inissue. If interpretation as given on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu isaccepted that delegation of power is absolute, then the submission thatsuch delegation is unbridled without any guideline carries great weight.Submission for the State of Tamil Nadu is that the lotteries may beprohibited in phases, viz. while running its own lotteries yet prohibitingother lotteries, may be as a public policy, for law and order, forpolitical reasons, morality, etc. For surviving such an interpretationgiven by Mr. Ganguli, Parliament should have provided some guidelines. Suchan interpretation falls into the trap of the submission that thisdelegation is unbridled. So, if there are two interpretations, theinterpretation which upholds the validity should be accepted. So, theinterpretation as given by Mr. Ganguli cannot be accepted. 87. We find on plain reading of Section 5, it empowers the StateGovernment within its State to prohibit the sale of tickets of thelotteries organized by every other State. There is also nothing in thelanguage reading by itself so as to say, whether such power can beexercised by the State while running its own lottery or can be exercisedonly where such State does not run its own lottery. This leads to twopossible interpretations, as referred to above. In view of settledprinciple of interpretations, the interpretation given by the union to readdown the provision has substance. This would mean that the State couldonly exercise such discretion if it decides not to have any lottery withinits territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegateis tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a Statehence cannot be said to be unbridled delegation. So even to the first partit cannot be said to be arbitrary or unbridled. So, we have no hesitationto approve the interpretation given by the Union to uphold the validity ofSection 5.”Relying on the above quoted paragraphs, learned senior counsel for theappellants vehemently contended that the State shall either prohibit thesale of all lotteries or allow the sale of all lotteries in the State.Selective prohibition of a particular type of lottery is impermissible inthe light of the above binding judgment.8) In support of this submission learned senior counsel apart from thedecision in B.R. Enterprises (supra) relied on the following decisions,viz., The Senior Electric Inspector and Others vs. Laxmi Narayan Chopra andOthers 1962 (3) SCR 146, State (Through CBI/New Delhi) vs. S.J. Choudhary(1996) 2 SCC 428 and SIL Import, USA vs. Exim Aides Silk Exporters,Bangalore (1999) 4 SCC 567.9) The learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala-the respondent hereinsupported the impugned notification by contending that the State Governmentis competent to prohibit a particular type of lottery. There is no fetteron the power of the Government under Section 5. Learned senior counselfurther submitted that when the Parliament enacted the Act in the year1998, there was nothing before it to presume that in times to come onlinelotteries will also come into existence apart from the paper lotteries and,therefore, the provision of Section 5 which empowers the State Governmentto prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organized, conducted orpromoted by every other State necessarily relate to paper lottery. Evenotherwise, online lottery is different from paper lottery and can betreated as a class in itself. The State Government is, therefore,empowered under Section 5 of the Act to prohibit the sale of onlinelotteries or internet lotteries in its State. He further submitted thatthe Central Government itself treated online lotteries as a different classin itself and, therefore, framed the Rules providing the rules andregulations for organizing paper lottery or online lottery or both subjectto certain terms and conditions. Thus, the intention of the Parliament wasto treat paper lotteries and online lotteries a different class. Thedecision in B.R. Enterprises (supra) would therefore necessarily beunderstood to relate to paper lotteries only. The said decision cannot beconstrued as a precedent. So, the declaration of law, made therein, is notapplicable to online lotteries. It is also submitted that prohibition ofsale of online lotteries has been made bona fide and the classification isreasonable and not arbitrary. Learned senior counsel further submittedthat the scheme of Section 4 would show that the Act was framed with a viewto deal with paper lotteries which were in vogue at that point of timewhereas the distributors of online lotteries do much more than selling thetickets. They decide and implement the lottery schemes, provide infra-structure and technology, print lotteries and participate in the conduct ofdraws. Section 4(h) of the Act prohibits holding of draws, more than oncein a week. This restriction has been made taking into account the conductof paper lotteries. But, in online lotteries, 70 to 100 draws are madeevery day in a week. On the above grounds the respondents prayed fordismissal of the appeals.Discussion:10) Before going into the validity of the impugned notification, it isfruitful to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The relevant portionof the Statement of Objects and Reasons for framing this legislation is asunder:“The conduct of certain types of lottery trade in the country, themalpractices thereof and their impact on the poorer sections of the societyhas been under scrutiny of the Government for quite some time. Thecontinued prevalence of the popularly known single digit and instantlotteries and the temptation offered by them proved to be the undoing ofmany families, especially poor daily wagers and low income groups.In spite of the guidelines issued by the Central Government over a periodof time as also the guidelines issued in the recent past by the HonourableSupreme Court. In the matter, the evil has not been totally eliminated andit is felt that a Central legislation to regulate the conduct of lotteriesis necessary to protect the interest of the gullible poor.”Section 2(b) defines ‘lottery’ which reads as follows:“2 (b) ‘lottery’ means a scheme, in whatever form and by whatever namecalled, for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those personsparticipating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets.”3. Prohibition of lotteries.—Save as otherwise provided in Section 4, noState Government shall organize, conduct or promote any lottery.Section 4 enumerates the conditions, subject to which a State Governmentmay organize, conduct or promote a lottery, which reads as follows:“4. Conditions subject to which lotteries may be organized etc.:- A StateGovernment may organize, conduct or promote a lottery, subject to thefollowing conditions, namely:-“(a) prizes shall not be offered on any pre-announced number or on thebasis of a single digit;(b) the State Government shall print the lottery tickets bearing theimprint and logo of the State in such manner that the authenticity of thelottery ticket is ensured;(c) the State Government shall sell the tickets either itself or throughdistributors or selling agents;(d) the proceeds of the sale of lottery tickets shall be credited intothe public account of the State;(e) the State Government itself shall conduct the draws of all thelotteries;(f) the prize money unclaimed within such time as may be prescribed bythe State Government or not otherwise distributed, shall become theproperty of that Government;(g) the place of draw shall be located within the State concerned;(h) no lottery shall have more than one draw in week;(i) the draws of all kinds of lotteries shall be conducted between suchperiod of the day as may be prescribed by the State Government;(j) the number of bumper draws of a lottery shall not be more than six ina calendar year;(k) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the CentralGovernment.”5. Prohibition of sale of ticket in a State.—A State Government may, withinthe State, prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organized, conductedor promoted by every other State.6. Prohibition of organization etc., of lottery.—The Central Governmentmay, by order published in the Official Gazette, prohibit a lotteryorganized, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions ofSection 4 or where tickets of such lottery are sold in contravention of theprovisions of Section 5.7. Penalty.—(1) Where a lottery is organized, conducted or promoted afterthe date on which this Act receives the assent of the President, incontravention of the provisions of this Act, by any Department of the StateGovernment, the Head of the Department shall be punishable with rigorousimprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or withboth:Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head ofthe Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the contraventionwas committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligenceto prevent the commission of such contravention.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where acontravention under this Act has been committed by a Department ofGovernment and it is proved that the contravention has been committed withthe consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the partof, any officer, other than the Head of the Department, such officer shallalso be deemed to be guilty of that contravention and shall be liable to beproceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) If any person acts as an agent or promoter or trader in any lotteryorganized, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of thisAct or sells, distributes or purchases the ticket of such lottery, he shallbe punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to twoyears or with fine or with both.8. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—The offence under this Actshall be cognizable and non-bailable.”11) From the above provisions, it can be seen that the tickets of a State-run lottery shall be printed by the State itself. Sale of tickets alone ispermitted through the agents or through distributors. The entire saleproceeds have to be credited in the public account of the State. Draws ofall the lotteries have to be conducted by the State Government. No lotterycan have more than one draw in a week. Bumper draws shall not be more thansix in a calendar year. The cumulative effect of sub-sections (h) and (j)appears to be that a State can run only 52 ordinary lotteries and sixbumper lotteries in a year. Section 5 empowers the State Government toprohibit the sale of tickets of lotteries organized, conducted or promotedby every other State Government. Section 6 empowers the Central Governmentto prohibit the conduct of lotteries, which are in violation of theprovisions of Section 4 or which are sold in contravention of theprohibition imposed by the State Government under Section 5. Section 7provides the penalty for running a lottery in violation of the provisionsof the Act. The Head of the Department and other officers responsible forthe conduct of the lottery shall be punished with imprisonment, which mayextend to two years or with fine or with both. Similar punishment can beimposed on those who sell or purchase the tickets of such a lottery.Section 8 makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable.Cognizable offence means an offence for which a police officer may arrestthe accused without warrant (Section 2(c) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’). In this background, it is alsorelevant to quote Section 4 of the Code which reads as follows:“4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws:- (1)All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall beinvestigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according tothe provisions hereinafter contained.(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquiredinto, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, butsubject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manneror place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing withsuch offences.”Since no provision is made for investigating the offences under the Act,the provisions under the Code will apply to its investigation, by virtue ofSection 4(2) of the Code quoted above.12) It is also relevant to mention the Notifications issued by the StateGovernment from time to time.“Government of Kerala Reg. No. KL/TV(N)/12/2003-2005 2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYVol.L Thiruvananthapuram 13th January, 2005Volume 50 Thursday No. 77 23rd Pousha 1926 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (H) Department NOTIFICATIONG.O.(P) No. 4/2005/TD dated, Thiruvanathapuram, 13th January, 2005. S.R.O. No. 34/2005 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998), theGovernment of Kerala hereby prohibit the sale of all Computerised andOnline lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines,terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold through Internet in Kerala,with immediate effect and declare that Kerala shall be the free zone fromOnline and Internet By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended toindicate its general purport). Government have decided to prohibit the sale of computerized andonline lottery tickets in the State of Kerala with immediate effect This notification is intended to achieve the above object.”“Government of Kerala Reg. No. KL/TV(N)/12/2003-2005 2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYVol.L Thiruvananthapuram 27th January, 2005Volume 50 Thursday No. 169 7th Magga 1926 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (H) Department NOTIFICATIONG.O.(P) No. 11/2005/TD dated, Thiruvanathapuram, 27th January, 2005. S.R.O. No. 73/2005 - WHEREAS Notification II G.O. (P) No. 4/2005/TDdated 13th January, 2005 published as S.R.O. No 34/2005 in Kerala GazetteExtraordinary No. 77 dated the 13th January, 2005 prohibiting the sale ofcomputerized and online lottery tickets in the State of Kerala has beenissued under Section 5 of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 (Central Act17 of 1998). AND WHEREAS the Government of Kerala have decided to prohibit thesale of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by the State ofKerala with immediate effect. AND WHEREAS the Government of Kerala have decided to prohibit thesale of tickets of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by everyother State Government also; NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 ofthe Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998) and all otherpowers enabling for it, the Government of Kerala hereby prohibit the saleof tickets of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every otherState Government including lotteries organized, conducted or promoted bythe Government of Kerala in the State of Kerala with immediate effect anddeclare that the State of Kerala shall hereafter be a Lottery Free Zone. By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended toindicate its general purport). Government of Kerala have decided to make the State of Kerala aLottery Free Zone. This notification is intended to achieve the above object. IIG.O.(P) No.11/2005/TD dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 27th January, 2005. S.R.O.No. 74/2005, - In exercise of the powers conferred bysubsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act,1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998), the Government of Kerala hereby make thefollowing rules to repeal the Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules,2003 issued in G.O.(P) No. 118/2003/TD dated the 16th July, 2003 andpublished as S.R.O.No 646/2003 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 1278dated the 16th July, 2003, as amended subsequently, namely:- Rules1. Short title, application and commencement:- (1) These rules may becalled the Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) (Repeal) Rules, 2005. 2. These rules shall apply to the whole of the State of Kerala. 3. They shall come into force at once.2. Repeal:- The Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 ishereby repealed. By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended toindicate its general purport). Government of Kerala by notification issued as G.O.(P)No.11/2005/TDdated 27th January, 2005 and published as S.R.O.No 73 in Kerala GazetteExtraordinary No. 169 dated 27th January, 2005 has prohibited the sale oflottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by the Government ofKerala. Accordingly the Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 hasto be repealed. This notification is intended to achieve the above object.” “Government of Kerala Reg. No.KL/TV(N)/12/2003-2005 2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYVol.L Thiruvananthapuram 22nd April, 2005Volume 50 Friday No. 837 2nd Vaisakha 1927 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (H) Department NOTIFICATIONSG.O.(P) No. 382/2005/TD dated, Thiruvanathapuram, 22nd April, 2005. S.R.O. No. 73/2005 - WHEREAS Notification II G.O. (P) No. 4/2005/TDdated 13th January, 2005 published as S.R.O. No. 34/2005 in Kerala GazetteExtraordinary No. 77 dated the 13th January, 2005 prohibiting the sale ofcomputerized and online lottery tickets in the State of Kerala. AND WHEREAS, by Notification No. I issued as G.O. (P)No.11/2005/TDdated 27th January, 2005 and published as S.R.O.No. 73 in the KeralaGazette Extraordinary No. 169 dated the 27th January, 2005, the Governmentof Kerala prohibited the sale of tickets of all lotteries organized,conducted or promoted by every State Government including that of State ofKerala and declared the State as a Lottery Free Zone. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 ofthe Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998) and inpartial modification of the Notification issued as S.R.O. No. 73/2005 datedthe 27th January, 2005, the Government of Kerala hereby lift theprohibition partially by permitting the sale of paper lotteries organized,conducted or promoted by every State Government including the State ofKerala provided that the prohibition imposed on the sale of computerizedand online lottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by every StateGovernment shall continue to remain in force and the territory of the Stateof Kerala shall be online, internet and computerized lotteries free zone. By order of the Governor. P. MARA PANDYAN, Secretary to Government Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the Notification, but is intended toindicate its general purport). Government of Kerala by notification issued as G.O. (P) No.66/2005/TD dated 20th April, 2005, have reconsidered the issue of theprohibition imposed on the sale of all Lottery Tickets in the State ofKerala and have decided to reintroduce Paper Lottery conducted by the StateGovernment with the same pattern and prize Structure as it prevailed before27th January, 2005.”From a perusal of the Notification dated 13.01.20015, issued by theGovernment of Kerala, we find that the State had prohibited the sale of allcomputerized and online lottery tickets marketed and operated throughvending machines, terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold throughinternet in Kerala. However, by notification dated 27.01.2005, the Statehad prohibited the sale of tickets of all lotteries in the State of Kerala. Vide notification dated 27.01.2005, the Government of Kerala made theKerala State Lotteries (Regulation) (Repeal) Rules, 2005 which repealed theentire Kerala State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003. Vide anothernotification dated 22.04.2005, the Government of Kerala lifted theprohibition of sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted byevery State Government including the State of Kerala. However, theprohibition imposed on the sale of computerized and online ticketscontinued to remain in force.13) In the 2010 Rules, framed by the Central Government, online Lotteryhas been defined under Rule 2(1)(e) which is as under-“‘online lottery’ means a system created to permit players to purchaselottery tickets generated by the computer or online machine at the lotteryterminals where the information about the sale of a ticket and the player’schoice of any particular number or combination of numbers is simultaneouslyregistered with the central computer server;”Rule 3 permitted the State Government to organize a paper lottery or onlinelottery or both subject to the conditions specified in the Act and theserules. Thus from the Rules, it is clear that online lottery is beingtreated as a separate lottery from paper lottery and it is a class initself.14) In the case on hand, we are mainly concerned with the provisions ofSection 5 and Section 6 of the Act. These two Sections cover differentfields. Section 5 deals with prohibition of sale of tickets, whereasSection 6 deals with prohibition of conduct of the lottery itself. So,Section 5 enables the State Government to prohibit the sale of tickets oflotteries run by every other State Government. The grounds on whichprohibition of sale of tickets can be made are not detailed under Section5. But, the same can be gathered from other provisions of the Act and alsoby reference to the Object and Scheme of the Act. Going by the scheme ofthe Act, it appears that violation of any of the conditions contained inSection 4 could be a ground for the State Government to prohibit the saleof tickets of a particular lottery, organized, conducted or promoted by anyother State Government. If the State Government thinks it fit, it mayprohibit the sale of all lottery tickets in the State and make it a lotteryfree zone. Section 6 empowers the Central Government to prohibit a lotteryrun by the State Government. The Central Government can prohibit therunning of a lottery by a State Government if it is found that the same isin violation of the provisions of Section 4. The Central Government canalso prohibit the running of a lottery if it is found that the tickets ofthat lottery are sold in a State, where the sale of the same has beenprohibited by the concerned State Government under Section 5.15) In view of the above, it is relevant to mention Entry 40 under List Iand Entry 34 in List II of the Seventh Schedule and Article 246 of theConstitution of India which are as under:-Entry 40 List I-Union List“40. Lotteries organized by the Government of India or the Government of aState.”Entry 34 List II-State List“34.Betting and Gambling.”Article 246 of the Constitution“246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures ofStates.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament hasexclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumeratedin List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the“Union List”).(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and, subject toclause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws withrespect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the SeventhSchedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”).(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State hasexclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof withrespect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule(in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”).(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for anypart of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding thatsuch matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.”It is common case that the Parliament, by virtue of Entry 40 under List Iof the Seventh Schedule, has got exclusive power to legislate on Statelotteries,. By virtue of Entry 34 in the State List, concerning bettingand gambling, State Legislatures have the power to legislate on lotteries,other than State Lotteries because it is also one of the forms of gambling16) The State of Sikkim, in its trading capacity, has been organizing,conducting and promoting online lotteries in accordance with the provisionsof the Act and lottery tickets are being sold in various lottery playingStates in India including the State of Kerala. The State of Sikkim, aspleaded before this Court, substantially depends on the revenue raised bythe sale of lottery tickets. It is a north eastern State with no avenuesof industrialization. It is the case of the appellants that they startedthe business of online lottery in the State of Kerala in the year 2003.Online lottery is a tamper proof lottery which has been designed using theaid of modern technology that eliminates all the ills of paper lottery andhas greater transparency and is universally recognized as a tamper proofand safe method of conducting lotteries. Modernization led to spurt ofcomputerization, satellite and internet connectivity which bears a greatimpact on every aspect of life, made things easier and faster and broughtin more transparency. Thus began lottery in another form, popularly called“online lottery.” The difference in the lotteries of this form is that“online” is free from possibility of any duplication, tamper etc., and istotally transparent.17) Online lotteries became popular in our country, only recently. Itmade their presence felt in India from 2000-2001 onwards. Though all typesof lotteries are meant to be covered by the Lotteries (Regulation) Act,1998, the deleterious effect of paper lotteries was uppermost in the mindof the Central Government while bringing forth the above legislation as, atthe relevant time, paper lotteries were most popular among the people. Thevarious sub-sections of Section 4 will reveal that the irregularities inthe conduct of paper lotteries were mainly in the contemplation of theParliament. The decision in B.R. Enterprises (supra) also dealt with theprohibition of sale of tickets of paper lotteries invoking power underSection 5 of the Act. Still, the general principles laid down by thisCourt in the abovementioned case, while interpreting Section 5, arebinding. So, the power to prohibit sale of tickets is granted in relationto a particular lottery or particular type of lottery. That means, aparticular lottery can be the subject-matter of prohibition. In otherwords, all types of lotteries need not be prohibited. But, going by thatdecision, a particular type of lottery can be prohibited, if only, theState Government also does not run that lottery. The online lottery is aparticular lottery, which is not run by the State Government. So, going bythe principles laid down in B.R. Enterprises (supra), the State Governmentcan separately ban the sale of online lotteries as online lottery is aparticular class of lottery, different and distinct from paper lotteries.18) Learned counsel for the appellants also brought into notice para 21of the Writ Petition filed before the High Court to show how the system ofonline lottery functions, which is as under:“The Online lottery involves installation of a Central Server, variousterminals, which are connected to the said Central Server through asatellite and all this involves huge expenses running into hundred ofcrores. In this online lottery form, there are no pre-printed tickets assuch. A person interested to purchase a ticket of online lottery comes tothe terminal, fills a play-slip with numbers selected by him and hands itover to the person manning the terminal. This play-slip is put into theterminal and numbers selected by the player are transmitted to the centralserver, which registers the said numbers. A person may not like to selectany numbers and may play lucky dip in which case the computers makes randomgeneration of numbers itself and transmit them to the central server, whichregisters the said numbers. In either of the cases after the centralserver has registered the numbers, it generates a ticket and commands theterminal, which acts like a fax on command and delivers the ticket, whichis on an imported thermal paper. The ticket besides containing thesenumbers contains various codes, details as also bar codes, which ensuresagainst any possibility of any duplication etc. The game is made moreinteresting and entertaining since the player has option to choose numbersfor himself. Like paper lottery in this case also various tickets can beprinted and sold as such, however, the same may not sell at all because theplayer does to like to lose the charm of selecting the numbers himself.However, whatever be the position, all the details regarding the number oftickets sold, their respective playing numbers, the number to tickets soldfrom each terminal etc. are all available in the central server. Thegeneration of tickets for any particular scheme closes 30 minutes beforethe holding of the draw and no retail terminal can generate a ticket forsuch draw after such closing and at the time of draw all the details arereadily available to the authorities immediately before the draw. The drawis held by the respective State themselves through a tamper free machineand is telecast on the Zee Television Network and watched by the public atlarge.”19) It was also contended before this Court that in exercise of thepowers conferred by Section 5 of the Act and in partial modification of thenotification issued earlier declaring Kerala a lottery free zone State, theGovernment lifted the prohibition partially by permitting the sale of paperlotteries and the prohibition imposed on the sale of computerized andonline lotteries continued to remain in force declaring the territory ofKerala to be online, internet and computerized lottery free zone. Thelegislative competence in respect of State run lotteries vests exclusivelywith the Centre except where a State is a lottery free State and that onlythe Central Government will have the power to deal with the same. Thenotification dated 22.04.2005 was issued by the State on the ground thatthe State of Kerala shall be an online lottery free zone.20) The State of Kerala is of the view that online lottery andconventional paper lotteries are to be dealt separately and are entirelydifferent in every aspect by the nature and features inherent in it. TheState of Kerala is of the view that online lottery does not characterizethe features of a lottery as defined under the Act. In fact, the so-calledonline lottery is not a lottery as it is a widespread network usinginternet, cheating the public in a massive way in the absence of a properregulatory system of the same standards. The online companies are merely‘gaming’, but not conducting any lottery as per the guidelines issued underthe Act. It is further pleaded that though it is claimed that onlinelotteries are universally recognized as tamper proof lotteries, inexperience, it is felt that the so-called online lotteries were cheatingthe massive gullible public by misusing the advancement of informationtechnology in the field of economy. The Government of Kerala has detectedand established before the Union Government that online lotteries organizedby the State of Sikkim are blatantly violating the provisions of Section 4of the Act. It was further contended that the Central Act was enacted bythe Parliament on 07.07.1998. At the time of formulating the Act, onlyconventional paper lottery was being conducted in the country. No onlinelottery existed at the time of enactment of the Act. The Central Act didnot envisage or took into account the online lotteries in the definitionclause while stipulating conditions under section 4 of the Act fororganizing, conducting or promoting a lottery by a State Government. Theconditions stipulated therein are only intended to cover the conduct ofpaper lotteries. The Government of Kerala has detected the flagrantviolations and fraud inherent in the online lotteries and also the illegalactivities of the appellants which directly affects more than 15 lakhspeople of Kerala who have already been deceived and are being continuouslycheated on minute to minute basis. The ill effects of these lotteries hadassumed major dimensions in the State. The newspaper reports, petitionsfrom the public and reports from the police reveal the magnitude of its illeffects, which include suicides, divorces, starvation and murders. Thiscreated more hardship to the respondent-State.21) The violations in terms of the Act in the case of Meghalaya, Sikkimand Nagaland State lotteries have already been furnished to the UnionGovernment on 12.01.2004 and 23.08.2004, some of which mentioned by theDivision Bench of the High Court in the judgment are as follows:-“(a) The online lottery tickets of Meghalaya, Sikkim and Nagaland Statesare printed by the terminal in violation of Section 4(b) of the Lotteries(Regulation) Act, 1998(b) The tickets of these States are printed in the stationery of the Sole-selling agent.(c) The draws are conducted in such a manner that the transparency andcredibility of the draw process is not at all established. According toMeghalaya rules, the presence of one Judge shall form the quorum.(d) The draws are conducted daily in a severe gambling fashion and inviolation of Section 4(h) and prizes are offered on the basis of a singledigit violating Section 4(a) of the Act.(e) There are clear similarities in the name of different lotteries andthey follow the same prize pattern, obviously making an attempt tocircumvent Section 4(h).”It is then pleaded that in practice, the so-called online lotteries,mislead the general public by its mesmeric gambling instinct inherent init. People are attracted to the modern technology used in these lotteriesand the instantaneous nature of it. They spend all their time in front ofthe online outlets and spoil all their money. They are being trapped bythe simple prizes they get and they invest the remaining part of theirmoney in a hope to get more and more big prizes. This is a continuousprocess starting from early in the morning and extends too late in thenight. The lotteries conducted by these online companies have draws inevery 15 minutes. Technically, they call it ‘weekly lotteries’ in order tocircumvent the objectives of the Act, but in result they are ridiculouslysetting aside the spirit of the Act. As a technical argument, each lotteryhas only one draw in a week. The draw of one lottery repeats only in thenext week. But, the tactics followed by these States is that they areconducting more than 100 lotteries with very strange names and by assigningpseudonyms. The online lotteries running in Kerala were in flagrantviolation of the provisions of the Act and this fact was detected by theState of Kerala. The State of Kerala has made known this fact to the UnionGovernment twice. The findings of the Government of Kerala revealed thatthe other States, on whose behalf the lotteries are being conducted inKerala, have least control over them and major source of income from thesegambling type of lotteries siphoned by the so-called middlemen who acts inthe name of ‘sole selling agents’. Similarly, the States of Karnataka andArunachal Pradesh have stopped the sale of online lotteries as they haveadmitted the violations pointed out by the State of Kerala. Onlinelotteries are being conducted under the name of other State Governments,circumventing the provisions of the Act, and also the single digitlotteries through dubious methods adopted by their distributors and agents. In some cases, some lotteries except one digit all other digits will bepre-fixed and the buyer has to choose only a single digit. In some othercases, one digit of two digit number or of three digit number will bechanging continuously, but in a pre-determined cyclic manner, which showsthat the draw is held only for one digit. It was detected from the lotteryterminals that the tickets of States of Meghalaya and Nagaland are beingprinted one after another from the same terminal and the same pool in anunbroken manner. Several tickets without the imprint and logo of otherState Governments and even without signature of the authorized officer ofthose States have been found being sold in the State of Kerala. Standardset of rules are printed on the reverse side of the stationery and ticketsof more than one States are being printed on the same material, by the sameterminal in unbroken strips. The proceeds of the sale of online lotteriesare rather shared by the distributors and agents without crediting in thepublic account of the respective States, in violation of the provisions ofthe Act. The details of unclaimed money are not brought to the knowledgeof the other State Governments, whereas the unclaimed prize money is beingappropriated by the distributors and agents. The place of draw is not atall located within the other States, whereas the same is being conductedaccording to the convenience of the distributors. The lottery distributorsand agents of other State Governments are resorting to such unscrupulousmethods and conducting online lotteries in every 15 minutes from thelottery terminals. The Lottery Department of the State had detected thedraws being conducted in lottery outlets for more than 49 draws in a day.22) The provisions in respect of Sikkim State Lotteries was reported tothe Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 12.01.2004. Thescheme of lotteries furnished by the Government of Sikkim revealed thatthey were not in conformity with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.The irregularities/violations in respect of the Sikkim lotteries being soldin Kerala in the year 2004 were brought to the notice of the StateGovernment earlier with a request for further documents/clarifications.Some of these violations/ irregularities are briefly mentioned below:“i. On a perusal of the agreement between the Government of Sikkim andM/s. Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Marketing Agent, it isseen that the agreement with the marketing agent is executed seven daysbefore the Sikkim Online Network Lottery Rules came into effect.ii The Marketing Agent is vested with powers more than what the LotteryRegulation Act permits. The State of Sikkim was asked to offer specificremarks on this.iii. Since a detailed description of the method of draw was not furnishedby the State of Sikkim, the same was called for from this office.iv. As per rule 12 of the Sikkim Online Network Lottery Rules, 2001, thetickets will be printed on pre-printed ticket material. On perusal of thetickets of Super-Lotto and Thunder Ball it is seen that the specimen playslips furnished by the Director of Lotteries, Sikkim bear the imprint andlogo of PLAYWIN. This shows that the tickets are instantly printed at theretail computer terminal, violating Section 4(b) of the LotteriesRegulation Act, 1998.v. The contractual agreement between the Play Win sub-agent and thedistributors was not furnished. So also the names of distributors forcertain districts in Kerala were not furnished.vi. The Government has furnished the details of 926 retail outletsoperating in the State. But the contractual agreement between thedistributor and these retail outlets were not submitted.vii. The marketing Agent under the Sikkim State Lotteries is empowered toset-up the required infrastructure and use of technology for the drawpurpose. It is clearly more than what is statutorily permissible underSection 4(c) of the Act.viii. As per Section 4(e) of the Central Act, ‘the State Government itselfshall conduct the draws of all the lotteries.’ But actual conduct of thedraws is done by the Marketing Agent, reducing the role of the StateGovernment to that of a mere spectator, thereby violating the aboveprovision.ix. The Thunderball, the last prize amount of Rs.20/- is ‘when one mainnumber and the Thunder ball (fixed) are matched.’ Until clarifications tothe contrary are provided with evidence, it has to be presumed that this isa camouflaged single digit lottery specifically prohibited under Section4(a) of the Central Act.”It was also pointed out in the letter to the Government of India thatSikkim has delegated more rights and responsibilities to the MarketingAgents than what is statutorily permissible under the Act. However,regarding the appointment of Marketing Agents, the State of Sikkim hasinformed that they will discuss the matter with the legal wing. The Stateof Sikkim has admitted that the tickets are printed on PLAYWIN Stationery,clearly admitting violation of Section 4(b) of the Act. With regard tothe allegation that ‘Thunder Ball’ lottery is being organized on the basisof single digit, the State of Sikkim has not offered any reasonableexplanation or furnished any document instead the State has merely refutedthe same. Even though the State of Sikkim was requested to furnishdetails/documents/clarifications regarding the allegations raised, no replywas received from it. The Government of Sikkim was reminded on 11.05.2004and 15.06.2004 to furnish the details called for earlier and also toprovide details of the new lotteries introduced by them in Kerala. Therehas been no response from the State so far. Thus the violations andirregularities pointed out in respect of Sikkim State Lotteries as inJanuary, 2004 continue unabated. This shows that the Government of Sikkimis not inclined to address the serious issues pointed out by the Governmentof Kerala with regard to the illegalities and violations connected withSikkim State Lottery tickets which are being sold among the public inKerala.Conclusion:23) The conduct of certain types of lottery trade in the country, themalpractices thereof and their impact on the poorer sections of the societyhave been under scrutiny of the Government for quite some time. Thecontinued prevalence of the popularly known single digit and instantlotteries and the temptation offered by them proved to be the undoing ofmany families, especially poor daily wagers and low income groups. Inspite of the guidelines issued by the Central Government over a period oftime as also the guidelines issued in the recent past by this Court, theevil has not been totally eliminated.24) The relevant provisions of the Act clearly demonstrate that eventhough all types of lotteries are meant to be regulated by the said Act,online lotteries were not under the contemplation of the Central Governmentat the time when the Act came into force. It is otherwise also not adisputed fact that online lotteries became popular insofar as India isconcerned only recently and in any case after the enforcement of the Actand that is why the Government of India while framing the 2010 Rulesspecifically defined ‘online lotteries’. Having this background in mind,the Scheme of the Act would clearly show that the Government at that stagewas concerned with paper lotteries of all kinds. From the preamble of theAct spelled out from the Statement of Objects and Reasons as re-producedhereinbefore, the necessity to bring about legislation in the matter ofregulating lotteries was felt on account of continued prevalence of singledigit and instant lotteries. It was primarily done to curb malpractices inthe conduct of such lotteries which at that time were paper lotteries onlywhen the Act came into force.25) With regard to the contention regarding the function of the onlinelottery, we are of the considered view that any type of manipulation can bedone in the printing of tickets at the terminal. The customer cannot knowwhether the ticket is printed at the terminal based on the command from thecentral server or not. The State of Sikkim does not have any control overits thousands of terminals all over India. As per Section 4(h) of the Act,the draw should be held once in a week. It means a fortune seeker, afterpurchasing the ticket, will get a week’s cooling time to wait for theresult of the draw. But, under the scheme of online lotteries, a number oflotteries run simultaneously. So, by holding several lotteries, there canbe several draws with a gap of few minutes in a day and the gullible willremain glued and there is every likelihood of purchase of ticketsrepeatedly, till all his savings are exhausted. So, if the Governmenttakes a decision in public interest to prohibit online lotteries, thisCourt should not interfere with the said decision unless there arecompelling grounds. As held earlier, going by Section 5, as interpreted bythis Court in B.R. Enterprises (supra), the sale of ticket of a particularlottery can be prohibited provided the concerned State Government is notrunning that lottery. While interpreting a Statute of this nature meant tosuppress the mischief of gambling, this Court should accept the concept ofpurposive interpretation and if possible save the notification intending tosave the people from the vice of gambling.26) It is common case that lottery is a species of gambling. Gambling isconsidered as a pernicious vice by all civilized societies from timeimmemorial. The Rigvedas, Smritis and Arthashastras have condemnedgambling as a vice. Several Judges and learned authors are unanimous intheir condemnation of gambling. Experience has shown that the common formsof gambling are comparatively innocuous when placed in contrast withwidespread pestilence of lotteries. The former are confined to a fewpersons and places, but the latter infests the whole community; it entersevery dwelling; it reaches every class; it preys upon the hard earnings ofthe poor; it plunders the ignorant and the simple.27) In Words and Phrases, Butterworths, 3rd Edition at page 71, it isstated as follows:“It must not be entirely forgotten in the construction of these Acts ofParliament (see now the Lotteries and Amusements Act, 1976) that the evilwhich the lottery law has sought to prevent was the evil which existedwhere poor people with only a few pence to feed their children would go andput these few pence into a lottery and lose them, and this sociologicallywas a bad thing…”28) Even in B.R. Enterprises (supra), this Court has held as under:“47. From the references from Dharmashastra, opinions of distinguishedauthors, references in the Encyclopaedia Britcannica and Boston Law Reviewand others, we find that each concludes, as we have observed, lotteryremains in the realm of gambling. Even where it is State-sponsored stillit was looked down upon as an evil. Right from ancient time till the dayall expressed concern to eliminate this, even where it was legalized forraising revenue either by the king or in the modern times by the State.Even this legitimization was for the sole purpose of raising revenue, wasalso for a limited period, since this received condemnation even for thislimited purpose. All this gives a clear picture of the nature andcharacter of lottery as perceived through the conscience of the people, asrevealed through ancient scriptures, also by various courts of thecountries.”This Court further added:“59…..But it cannot be doubted and it is recognized by all the countriesthat gambling by its very nature promises to make a poor man a rich man; toquench the thirst of a man in dire economic distress or to a man with abursting desire to become wealthy overnight it draws them into the magneticfield of lotteries with crippling effect. More often than not, such hopeswith very remote chance encourages the spirit of reckless prosperity (sicpropensity) in him, ruining him and his family. This encouraging hope withthe magnitude of prize money never dwindles. Losses and failures inlotteries instead of disencouragement increases the craze with intoxicatinghope, not only to erase the losses but to fill his imaginative coffer.When this chance mixes with this utopian hope, he is repeatedly drawn backinto the circle of lottery like a drug addict. Inevitably, the happinessof his family is lost. He goes into a chronic state of indebtedness…..”29) Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India deals with exclusivepower of the Parliament to make laws with respect to matters enumerated inList I (Union List) in the Seventh Schedule. As per Article 246(2),Parliament and the Legislature of any State also have power to make lawswith respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III (Concurrent List)in the Seventh Schedule. The Legislature of the State has, however,exclusive power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in List II(State List) in the Seventh Schedule, as per Article 246(3) of theConstitution. Also, there being a specific entry dealing with lotteries,the power to legislate on lotteries would be in the exclusive domain of theParliament, even though it is a form of gambling and would be generallycovered under Item No. 34 of List II (State List). The Parliament, inexercise of the power vested in it to enact law on lotteries as per ItemNo. 40 of List I (Union List), enacted the Lotteries (Regulation) Act,1998. Section 3 of the Act ordains that save as otherwise provided inSection 4, no State Government shall organize, conduct or promote anylottery. A State Government has been authorized to organize, conduct orpromote a lottery, subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 4 whichhas already been re-produced earlier. It is absolutely clear that eventhough the power to legislate on lotteries vests exclusively with theParliament, the respective States have been delegated this power, but ithas to be subject to conditions enumerated in Section 4. By virtue of theprovisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out theprovisions of the Act. Exercising the powers vested in it by theprovisions contained in Section 12, the State of Kerala has framed the“Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2005.”30) Provisions of the Act, in particular, Section 12 of the Act clearlymanifest that even though the power to legislate on the subject ‘lotteries’is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, the power to legislate aswell has been delegated by the Parliament to the respective States in thecountry and as mentioned above, it is in exercise of that power the Stateof Kerala has indeed framed the Rules of 2005. It is significant tomention that Section 5 further authorizes a State Government to prohibitthe sale of tickets of the lottery organized, conducted or promoted byevery other State. Section 5 of the Act was, however, under a seriouschallenge in B.R. Enterprises (supra). Framed in somewhat differentlanguage, the challenge to Section 5 was that the delegation to the Stateto decide to prohibit the sale of lotteries organized by other States is adelegation by Parliament of its essential legislative power, without anypolicy or bereft of the guidelines and that there was total abdication ofthe legislative power of the Parliament which was a naked delegation,hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The countercontention raised by the States and, in particular, the State of Tamil Naduwhich had banned lotteries of other States, but continued to have its own,was that on a plain reading of Section 5, a State without banning its ownlotteries can ban lotteries organized by other States. The Union of Indiaand also the State of U.P. had raised a contention that Section 5 should beread as to entitle only such State to ban which, as a policy, does notpermit its own lottery to run. If this be so, possibly there could be nodiscrimination as it would apply uniformly to all the States. On therespective contentions of the learned counsel as mentioned above, thisCourt framed the question as follows:“81. The legal principle which emerges, as submitted, is that delegation ofessential legislative power of the principal to the delegatee would amountto abdication of its legislative power and if it is bereft of anyguidelines then it is unsustainable in the eye of the law…..”While dealing with the question aforesaid, this Court first recordedreasons as to why the power had been delegated by the Union to the States.It was inter alia observed as follows:-“83. As revealed from Anraj case-I some of the States sought permission ofthe Union as a policy to raise their revenue through these lotteries, whichwas conferred by the Presidential Order under Article 258(1), though itrecords, the State could have exercised their discretion as a policy tohave their own lotteries without such permission in view of its extendedexecutive power under Article 298. It further reveals, till Parliamentmakes any law, the decision to start its lottery or to close it isexclusively within the executive power of each State. This is because itis the policy decision of a State which has to decide as a principlewhether it desires to collect in this form the revenue or not. The benefitof Article 298 is, it is extraterritorial, applicable beyond its territory,it is for this State lotteries are places in Entry 40 List I. So in afederal structure, Union has to play a role to coordinate between one Statewith the other. So by regulation it has to subserve the objectives. TheUnion cannot force a State to gamble if such a State does not want togamble. To run its own lotteries or to close it is left on the discretionof each State. It is each State which has to decide its policy and has tobe concerned about its subject. In any case, the Union cannot force anyState that it must run its own lotteries. But control of State lotteriesrunning in the territory of other States is left on the Union. The Statecannot restrict sales of lotteries organized by other States even in itsterritory unless authorized by the Union. This difficulty was felt by theState which is indicated in Anraj case-I. That seems to be the reason thatParliament has delegated this power to the State under section 5…..”31) After taking into consideration the background leading to delegationof power by Union to the States, the question as to whether the delegationcould be construed to be such as amounting to delegation of its essentiallegislative power and that too unguided or unbridled was examined. Thequestion was answered as follows:-“84. In Section 2(b) lotteries are defined to be a scheme for distributionof prizes by a lot or chance. This definition itself recognizes that evenin State lotteries the prizes are to be collected by chance without anyskill, hence gambling in nature. Section 3 prohibits that no Statelotteries can be organized without the condition stipulated under clauses(a) to (k) of Section 4. Section 4 provides the conditions to be compliedwith by the State lotteries. To initiate any State lottery it is left tothe policy of each State, for this Act is silent. The only control is, incase it decides, then it must follow the conditions as laid down underSection 4. Next comes Section 5 which is subject matter of challenge, thedelegation of power to the State to prohibit the sale of lottery ticketsorganized by every other State. If a State desires not to subject itspeople to the lottery gambling, it has no power to restrict lotteriesorganized by other States. It is to remove this mischief that power isconferred through delegation to the States to do it in terms of their ownpolicy. By virtue of this, now the State Government can prohibit sale oflottery tickets of every other State within its territory. Next, Section 6seeks strict compliance with Section 4.Under this the Central Government may prohibit any State lottery which isbeing conducted in contravention of the conditions as laid down underSection 4 or Section 5. Section 7 shows the rigour of this Act by makingit a penal offence as against all, who violate the provisions of this Act,be it the Head of the Department of the Government or the agent, promoteror trader, to be punishable with two years rigorous imprisonment. Section8 makes such an offence cognizable and non-bailable. Similarly, Section 9deals with offences committed by the companies. Section 10 entrusts theCentral Government power to give directions to the State Government forcarrying into execution the provisions of this Act, Rule or Order.Sections 11 and 12 are the rule-making power entrusted to the Central andthe State Governments respectively. Section 13 repeals the Ordinance.Thus, the whole Act makes clear that the subject it is dealing with isgambling in nature. The object of the Act is not to control the policydecision of each State to start or to close its lotteries, but to regulateit in case a State decides to run its own lottery through modalities andconditions laid down therein. Emphasis of the whole Act is to abide by theconditions strictly if you want to run a lottery. Thus, regulation isthrough conditions to eliminate even the remotest possibility ofmalpractices by providing stringent measures for its compliance. Perusalof the Act reveals, the scheme of the Act is limited in its application,and it admits the subject it is dealing is gambling in nature. As we havesaid, the decision to collect or not to collect revenue through Statelotteries is exclusively within the policy decision of the State and forthis, neither the Union nor Parliament interferes nor is there anyindication under the Act. Thus, the question which remains is, if anyState decides that it does not want any lotteries but if it feels helplessas having no jurisdiction over the lotteries organized by other States,what is the way out? This can only be done by Parliament or by entrustingthis power on such State desiring so, which has been done through Section5. In this background, for this helplessness of a State as recorded inAnraj case-I [(1984) 2 SCC 292] the remedy is provided by entrusting thispower on the State under the impugned provision. This helps such State toachieve its objective of lottery (gambling) free zone within its territory. A well-concerned remedy. Next question is what could have been theguideline? If State lotteries are gambling and it cannot be terms as‘trade and commerce’ at common parlance for any free right under theConstitution. Such right though recognized under Article 298, so otherStates may continue to enjoy till prohibited by valid law, and if any Statewants within its State lottery-free zone and for which the power isentrusted to such State, it cannot be said in this setting and backgroundand the nature of the subject that such a delegation is of its essentiallegislative power. The only guideline necessary in such delegation is tosee that the State does not pick and choose one State from the other, whichguideline is already provided in this Section. It provides that such a bancould only be if it is applied to every other State. The only residualfield of attack so far as this delegation could be, which has been attackedin this case, that the State could on one hand ban lotteries of every otherState but run its own lotteries. It is argued that while a State banslotteries of other States not to permit any gambling activity in the publicinterest as a policy but this very public interest is flouted by havinglotteries of its own. It is true that unless this provision is read downto mean a State can only ban lotteries of other States when it bans as apolicy its own lotteries it is bound to be subjected to the vagaries aspointed out and on deeper scrutiny it may not successfully stand. But, byreading down the provision, which has to be read that it is only that Statewhich decides lottery-free zone within its State can prohibit lotteries ofother States clearly provides the guidance for the exercise of such apower. It is inbuilt and inherent in the provision itself in view of thescheme of the Act and nature of subject in issue. If interpretation asgiven on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu is accepted that delegation ofpower is absolute, then the submission that such delegation is unbridledwithout any guideline carries great weight. Submission for the State ofTamil Nadu is that the lotteries may be prohibited in phases, viz. whilerunning its own lotteries yet prohibiting other lotteries, may be as apublic policy, for law and order, for political reasons, morality, etc. Forsurviving such an interpretation given by Mr. Ganguli, Parliament shouldhave provided some guidelines. Such an interpretation falls into the trapof the submission that this delegation is unbridled. So, if there are twointerpretations, the interpretation which upholds the validity should beaccepted. So, the interpretation as given by Mr. Ganguli cannot beaccepted.”“85. There are two parts of the attack of the delegation of power to theState under Section 5. The latter part, by which it can prohibit sale oflottery tickets organized by every State which leaves no scope of anydiscretion on the States to discriminate from one State to other. So if itdecides no lottery tickets of any State to be sold it cannot pick andchoose from one State to the other.Once it, as a policy, decides to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets ofother States it must prohibit every other State, that is to say, all theStates and such a delegation cannot be said to be either abdication of thelegislative power of Parliament or to be unbridled or unguided. As we havesaid looking to the nature of the subject and object of the Act which is tohelp each State in its endeavor to run State lotteries which would includestarting or closing its lotteries and when a State wants to have lottery-free zone in its State, then such a delegation to ban lottery of everyother State cannot be said to be invalid. To the first part, there are twointerpretation, one on the plain reading of Section 5, a State may run itsown lottery yet may prohibit the sale of lotteries of other States. Thisconstruction leads to discrimination and opens for criticism of unbridleddelegation. The submission further is, if the ban of sale of lotterytickets of every other State is as a public policy, affecting the moralityand resultant ill effect on its subject then there is no justification thatthe State may run its own lottery affecting the very subject for which thepower is exercised prohibiting the lotteries of other states. It is true,if such an interpretation is accepted then this submission has a force. Onthe other hand, on behalf of the Union the submission is that the languageof the section has to be read down. The decision to have its lottery ornot to have its lottery has to be in the public interest. Every decisionto have either lotteries authorized by the State or organized by the Statehas to be in public interest. May be for collection of public revenue orfor a public purpose. It has been held in Central Inland Water TransportCorporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly AIR para 93:There must be no injury or harm to the public interest, public good andpublic welfare.Thus, the decision to run State lottery has to be made with the conscience(sic consciousness) of its evil consequences on its subject. Thus beforedeciding the State has to equate the public welfare with the injury on itspublic. It may be in a given case within the limitation of its financialcapacity with the need of the hour it has to decide to run its ownlotteries to augment its revenue in the larger interest of the public whichif weighed with the evil consequences on its subject, the public welfaregains more by running it then the evil consequence on its subject has togive way till the situation changes by finding a better way for thisadditional source or evil consequences inflicting on its subjectoverweighing. This exercise has to be by each State, the Union not comingin its way. It is for each State to decide what is its public welfare andwhat constitutes an injury to the public interest. Rattan Chand Hira Chandvs. Askar Nawaz Jung holds, what constitutes public interest or welfarewould depend upon the time. The social milieu in which the contract issought to be enforced would decide the factum, the nature and the degree ofinjury.86. So, whenever a State decides to run or not to run its lotteries it isthe State which has to decide as a public policy in the public interest.Once such a decision is taken to have its State lottery-free zone, theentrustment of power by Parliament cannot be said to be ultra vires.87. We find on plain reading of Section 5, it empowers the StateGovernment within its State to prohibit the sale of tickets of thelotteries organized by every other State. There is also nothing in thelanguage reading by itself so as to say, whether such power can beexercised by the State while running its own lottery or can be exercisedonly where such State does not run its own lottery. This leads to twopossible interpretations, as referred to above. In view of settledprinciple of interpretations, the interpretation given by the union to readdown the provision has substance. This would mean that the State couldonly exercise such discretion if it decides not to have any lottery withinits territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegateeis tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a Statehence cannot be said to be unbridled delegation. So even to the first partit cannot be said to be arbitrary or unbridled. So, we have no hesitationto approve the interpretation given by the Union to uphold the validity ofSection 5.”32) From the observations made by this Court, as extracted above, learnedcounsel representing the appellants contended that the State of Keralacould not prohibit any form of lottery as long as it was running otherforms of lottery of other States as also of the State of Kerala. Afterhaving given anxious thought to the rival contentions, we are not inclinedto accept the contention raised by learned senior counsel for theappellants.33) It may be reiterated that the question that came to be framed by thisCourt on the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties inB.R. Enterprises (supra) was as to whether the delegation of essentiallegislative power of the principal to a delegatee would amount toabdication of its legislative power and if it is bereft of any guidelinesthen is it unsustainable in the eyes of law. This Court held that if theState decides that it does not want any lotteries but if it feels helplessas having no jurisdiction over the lotteries organized by other States, itcan only be done by the Parliament or by entrusting this power on suchState desiring so, which has been done through Section 5. The remedy isprovided by entrusting this power on the State under Section 5. This wouldhelp the State to achieve its objective of ‘lottery free zone’ within itsterritory. While dealing with the guidelines, this Court further observedthat if a State may want it to be a lottery-free zone, it could not be saidthat such delegation would be of essential legislative power. The onlyguideline necessary in such a delegation is to see that the State does notpick and choose one State from the other, which guideline is alreadyprovided in the Section. If the ban is applied to all the States and alsothe State banning lotteries, the contention that delegation was excessive,uncanalised and unbridled would lose its sting. We are satisfied that byvirtue of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, the Centre hasdelegated its power to legislate with regard to lotteries to States andfurther that there is specific delegation with regard to ban of lotteriesof other States by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 5 of theAct. This delegation of legislative power of the principal to thedelegatee would not amount to abdication of legislative power by the Centreand it would not be without any guidelines and would be sustainable in lawif the concerned State may ban a lottery in its own State and of otherStates as well. What is true with regard to the total ban of lotteries ofother States, in our view, would also be true with regard to a particularkind of lottery as the delegation of power has been held to be valid if thepower by the delegatee may be used uniformly in its own State and also withregard to the other States. In the context of the facts and circumstancesof the case as fully detailed above, we hold that when the State of Keralamay prohibit a particular kind of lottery from its own State, it canprohibit sale of such lottery from any other State and that would not beunsustainable in the eyes of law nor it could be against law as held bythis Court in B.R. Enterprises (supra).34) We also hold that it is not a case of abdication of legislative powerand would not be bereft of any guidelines if the legislation banninglotteries was applied uniformly. We, on the interpretation of the point onthe issue of delegation of essential legislative power bereft of anyguidelines, hold that it is not a case of abdication of the legislativepower of the Centre and further that if the ban on the online lotteryapplies uniformly, it would not be a case of exercising power by adelegatee without any guidelines.35) In the case of The Senior Electric Inspector (supra), this Court,while considering as to whether the doctrine of contemporanea expositio canbe applied in construing Acts which are comparatively modern, held asunder:-“The legal position may be summarized thus:-The maxim contemporaneaexpositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutesbut not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is agood reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamentalrule of construction is the same whether the court is asked to construe aprovision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what isthe expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult toattribute to a legislative body functioning in astatic society that itsintention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take withinits sweep the future development comprehended by the phraseology used. Itis more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstancesobtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressivesociety it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislatureto the meaning attributable to the modern Legislature to the meaningattributable to the modern Legislature making laws to govern a societywhich is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaningthe same concept might attract with the march of time and with therevolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political andscientific and other field of human activity. Indeed, unless a contraryintention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used totake in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehendingthem.”36) In State vs. S.J. Choudhary (supra), this Court in paragraph 10 hadreferred to a passage contained in statutory interpretation by FrancisBennion, Second Edition for holding that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 isby its very nature is an “ongoing Act”. Paragraph 10 of the judgment isreproduced below:- (2) It is presumed that Parliament intends the court to apply to anongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allowfor changes since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction).While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This meansthat in its application on any date, the language of the Act, thoughnecessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed inaccordance with the need to treat it as current law. * * *”In the comments that follow it is pointed out that an ongoing Act is takento be always speaking. It is also, further, stated thus:“In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume thatParliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a wayas to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly theinterpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that haveoccurred, since the Act’s passing, in law, social conditions, technology,the meaning of words, and other matters. Just as the US Constitution isregarded as ‘a living Constitution’, so an ongoing British Act is regardedas ‘a living Act’. That today’s construction involves the supposition thatParliament was catering long ago for a state of affairs that did not thenexist is no argument against that construction. Parliament, in the wordingof an enactment, is expected to anticipate temporal developments. Thedrafter will try to foresee the future, and allow for it in the wording. * * *An enactment of former days is thus to be read today, in the light ofdynamic processing received over the years, with such modification of thecurrent meaning of its language as will now give effect to the originallegislative intention. The reality and effect of dynamic processingprovides the gradual adjustment. It is constituted by judicialinterpretation, year in and year out. It also comprises processing byexecutive officials.”37) Similarly, in SIL Import USA (supra), this Court has again reiteratedas follows:-“16. Francis Bennion in Statutory Interpretation has stressed the need tointerpret a statute by making “allowances for any relevant changes thathave occurred, since the Act’s passing, in law, social conditions,technology, the meaning of words, and other matters”.17. For the need to update legislations, the courts have the duty to useinterpretative process to the fullest extent permissible by the enactment.The following passage at p. 167 of the above book has been quoted withapproval by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State v. S.J. Choudhary:“It is presumed that Parliament intends the court to apply to an ongoingAct a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow forchanges since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction).While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This meansthat in its application on any date, the language of the Act, thoughnecessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed inaccordance with the need to treat it as current law.””38) With the ongoing development in the field of science and technology,even though the online lotteries were not in vogue in 1998 when theParliament had passed the Act, it came into existence at a later point oftime. The principles laid down by this Court in B.R. Enterprises (supra)would apply to the paper lotteries which were in existence at that point oftime. The principles laid down therein would also apply to onlinelotteries or internet lotteries by treating them as a separate class. Theprinciple laid down therein is that if the State Government has to prohibitany lottery organized, conducted or promoted by every other State, it hasto prohibit the sale of its own lottery also. Meaning thereby, if a paperlottery is being prohibited by a particular State then that paper lotteryhas to be prohibited as a whole. Likewise, if online or internet lotteryis to be prohibited by a State then that online lottery or internet lotteryof all States including that State also has to be prohibited. Viewed fromthis angle, we are of the considered opinion that State of Kerala was wellwithin its rights to prohibit the sale of online or internet lotteries inits State and there is no fault in it. It is well within the powersconferred on it under Section 5 of the Act. A State Government canorganize, conduct or promote a lottery subject to conditions mentioned inSection 4 and if there is any violation of the conditions mentioned inSection 4, it would be always open to the State Government to prohibit suchlottery and that would be within the legislative power vested with theState under Section 5 of the Act as in that case the State would be onlycomplying with the provisions of the Act made by the Parliament. Thelearned Single Judge while examining the facts of the case, manner andmethod in which the sale of online lotteries are conducted, has alreadyheld that it violates the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act. Infact, during the course of arguments, no effort was made to dislodge thefindings recorded by the courts below. The view adopted from theobservation made by this Court in B.R. Enterprises (supra), in any case, ispossible.39) In our considered opinion, learned single Judge of the High Courtrightly mentioned in his judgment that “in fairness, it must be concededthat Section 5, in the light of the interpretation in B.R. Enterprises(supra), admits two interpretations. One is that the State can prohibitany form of lottery, if only it is not running any lottery at all. Thesecond interpretation is that the State can prohibit a particular form oflottery, if it is not running that form of lottery, even if it is runningother types of lotteries. The Act has been designedly made to suppress themischief of lottery. Therefore, we feel that an interpretation, whichadvances the object of the Act, should be favoured. That means, the Statecan prohibit online lotteries, if it is not running the said type oflotteries. The decision in B.R. Enterprises (supra), which was dealingwith the prohibition of paper lotteries, does not stand in the way ofaccepting such an interpretation. Accordingly, the main challenge againstthe impugned notification that it violates Section 5 of the Act isrepelled.40) In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity inthe order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.05.2006,consequently, the appeals and the writ petitions fail and are accordinglydismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. ...…………….………………………CJI. (H.L. DATTU).…....…………………………………J. (R.K. AGRAWAL).…....…………………………………J. (ARUN MISHRA)NEW DELHI;NOVEMBER 5, 2015.ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA(For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 3518/2007ALL KERALA ONLINE LOTTERY DEALERS ASS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)WITHW.P.(C) No. 641/2007C.A. No. 3519/2007C.A. No. 3520/2007W.P.(C) No. 233/2010Date : 05/11/2015 These appeals and writ petitions were called on pronouncement of today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Petitioner-in-personFor Respondent(s) Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR Mr. T.C. Sharma, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal pronounced the reportable judgmentof the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship and Hon'bleMr. Justice Arun Mishra. The appeals and writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the signedreportable judgment. (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Original author: Mohit Singh