"This decision has not diluted the law laid down with respect to the finding that gambling would not fall within the meaning of the word "trade" under Article 301 of the Constitution or to have diluted that such transaction would not get protection under Article 19(1)(g). What is said is that moral prohibitions in Hindu law texts against gambling were not legally enforced. It is true, within the moral format, in a strict sense, if it was to be legally enforced there could not have been any legalised gambling. But it cannot be doubted and it is recognised by all the countries that gambling by its very nature promises to make a poor man a rich man; to quench the thirst of a man in dire economics distress or to a man with a bursting desire to become wealthy overnight it draws them into the magnetic field of lotteries with crippling effect. More often than not, such hopes with very remote chance encourges the spirit of reckless prosperity (sic propensity) in him, ruining him and his family. This encourging hope with the magnitude of prize money never dwindles. Losses and failures in lotteries instead of discouragement increases the craze with intoxicating hope, not only to erase the losses but to fill his imaginative coffer. When this chance mixes with this utopian hope, he is repeatedly drawn back into the circle of lottery like a drug addict. Inevitably, the happiness of his family is lost. He goes into a chronic state of indebtedness. In this context, it is aid that how the Constitution-makes could ever have
