The ongoing debate of whether or not online gambling should be allowed in India doesn’t appear to be any closer to a resolution. Specifically, arguments that several types of games are actually games of chance and not games of skill are looking to bring the activity to a halt, but no one is willing to bring the debate to an end. Delhi’s High Court was going to address the subject, thanks to social activist Avinash Mehrotra, but has decided to push it off until the end of November.
Mehrotra had presented what’s known in India as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a type of lawsuit that is used to try to effect social change in India. He has maintained his position in the spotlight fighting against online games, asserting that many are simply games of chance that, as defined by law, are being conducted illegally in the country.
The Delhi High Court, led by Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar, pushed the PIL aside and has ordered India’s central government to respond to the litigation. The Solicitor General of India, who represents the government in the case, has asserted that gambling is a state matter and that the National Capital Territory of Delhi needs to be involved, as well.
The High Court also directed Mehrotra to respond to the assertions, tabling any further discussion on the subject until November 28. Mehrotra has been pushing to have online sites that offer activity such as poker, sports betting, election betting and others banned since they, according to him, are games of chance.
It has already been well established that poker and sports gambling are almost entirely based on skill – looking at some poker players that continue to run deep after decades of play is enough to support that assertion. However, certain individuals fail to see the facts and continue to ignore established science.
Even looking beyond the skill/chance debate, trying to ban the activity would be foolish and unproductive. Science has also already shown that bettors are going to bet, regardless of what laws are put in place. By legalizing and regulating the activity, consumer and addiction protection can be provided, and governments can capitalize on the economic benefits of the activity.
