Writ petitions challenged Maharashtra's ban on sale of tickets of lotteries authorised by other States' administrations but organised by private bodies like the Indian Red Cross Society. The Supreme Court held such lotteries fell within State legislative competence, found no Article 14 discrimination in the exemption scheme, and dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
201
J. K. BHARAT!
A
v.
. '
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS .
B
July 23, 1984
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
-l
Constitution of India 1950, Article 14, Entry 40 of List 1 of Schedule VJJ and Entry 34 of List 11 of Schedule Vil and The Bo1nbay Lol/eries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competition (Tax) Act 1958, Section 32 (c).
c
Lotteries-r/otteries autho1ised but not organised by the govcrn1nent of other states'-Ban on sale of such lottery tickets-Whether competent-Whether any discrimination involved.
D
The petitioner in their writ petitions to this Court contested the b.ao on sale within the St"ate of Maharashtra, of tickets of lotteries organised by the Indian Red~Cross Society. Dadra and Nagar Have!i 1 branch and authorised by the ad1ninistration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Dismissing the wtit petitions,
HELD : ( l) (i) The Bombay Lotteries (Control and tax) and Prize Competition (Tax) Act, 1958 is an Act to control and tax lotteries and prize competition in the State of Maharashtra. The Act contains detailed provisions for the licensing, regulation and control of lottery within the State of Maharashtra. Section 32(c), provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to "a lottery specially authorised by the State Government." [2030-H]
(ii) Io the case of lotteries authorised by the GoYeromeot of Maharashtra, the Government of Maharashtra may retain to itself all neces• sary powers for the regulation and control and the prevention of misuse of funds and e-xploitation of guileless members of the public. In the case Of lotteries authorised by the Government of other States it may be difficult and even impossible for the Government of Mahara sbtra to takeadequate regulatory steps to prevent abuse of the authority given by Governments of other States to non·Governmental agencies to organnise lotteries. It may be equally difficult for the Governments of other States to take
E
F
G
ff
202
(1985) l s.c R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
' A adequ.1te measures for prevention of abuse of such authority within the State of Maharashtra. [204C-D] 2. No hostile discrimination whatever is involved in not extending the exemption from the applicability of the Bombay Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competition (Tax) Act, 1958 'to lotteries uthorised but B not org=tnised by the Goernment of other States'. [2040] . 3. Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Govern· meat of the State have been taken out .from Entry 34 of List II of Schedule VJ[ by Entry 40 of List 1.- There !s, the.refore no question about the co~petence of the Legislature of Afaharashtra to legislate in respect of the c sail! or distribution, in tha State of M1harashtra, of tickets of all lotteries organised by any agency whatsoever other than the Government of India or the Government of a State. [203E-F]
)....
H. Anraj and others v. State of Maharashtra, explained.
D
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 12820, 12592, 112714, 12736, 12747, 12821, 1'035and13022of1984. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Dr. Y. S. Clzitale, Vtmal Dave, Randhlr Singh, 0. Swamy, E . Vineet Kumar, N. K. Sharma, Ms. Deepika Saxena. S. M. Ashri and M. Vee;appa for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was deHvered by
-' C11INNAPPA REDDY, J. This order is virtually a postscript to ' our judgment in H. · Anraj and Ors. v. State of Malwrasflim What -Vas in questiol) in H. Anraj and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra -was the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra on the sale of tickets of lotteries conductc by the Government of other G States in the State of Maharashtra. What is presently in question in the writ petitions before us is the ban on the sale of tickets of lotteries authorised but not organised by the Governments of other States. Specifically, we are concerned with the ban on sale, within the State of l\faharashtra, of tickets of lotteries organised by the Indian Red Cross Society, Dadra and Nagar Haveli branch and authorised by the adminsitration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. In H Anraj and Ors. v. SIPte of Maharashtra we held th.'.lt the subject"
203
J. K. BHARTI v. MAHARASHTRA (Chi1111appa Reddy, J.)
A
B
c
D
E
"Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State" had been taken out from the lcg1stative field, comprised by the expression "Betting and Gambling" in Entry 34 of List II of Schedule VII and was reserved to be dealt with by Parliament under Entry 40 of List I of Schedule VII. Even so, we held, Art. 298 of the Constitution left the Government of a State free to carry on any trade or business in respect of which it may not have the power to make laws, but that the power to carry on such trade or business shall be subject to legislation by Parliament, Therefore, we said, in the absence of Parliamentary legislation, the Government of every State had the unrestricted right to organise lotteries and this right was not subject to the executive power of the Government of India or the execu\ive and legislative powers of other States. Consequently, we held that the Government of Maharashtra did not have the right to impose a ban on the sale and distribution of tickets of lotteries organised by other States in the State of Maharashtra. In the instant cases, we are co·ncerned not with the ban on lotteries organise~ by the Governments of other States but with the ban on lotteries authorised by such Governments and organised by institutions and persons other than the Governments. The source of power is not in question. It is to be found in Entry 34 of List ll of Schedule VII which empowers the State legislature to make laws in respect of "Betting and Gambling", which expression has always been held to include the conduct 'of lotteries. While lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State have been taken out of Entry 34 of List 11 of Schedule VII by Entry 40 of List I; there is no question about the competence of the Legislature of Maharashtra to legislate in respect of the sale or distribution, in the State of Maharashtra, of tickets of all lotteries organised by any agency wbatsover other than the Government of India or the Government of a State.
The Bombay Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competition (Tax) Act, 1958 is an Act to control and tax lotteries and prize competition in the State of Maharashtra. Section 3 of the Act declares : "Save as provided by the Act, all lotteries are unlawful." The Act contains detailed provisions for the licencing, regulation and control of lotteries within State of Maharashtra. By Sec. 32 (c), it is provided that nothing in the Act shall apply to "a lottery specially authorised by the State Government." The submission of Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the exemption from the applicability of the Act granted to lotteries "sepecially authorised by the State Government", that is, by the
F
G
H
204
[1985) ) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REi'ORTS
,
A
B
c
D
Government of Maharashtra, was discriminatory; the exemption should be extended to all lotteries authorised by the Government of any State whatsoever. Article 14 of the Col]stitution is invoked in aid of the submission; the reason for exempting lotteries autho· riscd by the Government of Maharashtra from the applicability of the Act and not lotteries authorised by the Governments of other States is patent. In the case of lotteries authorised by the Govern· ment of Maharashtra, the Government of Maharashtra may retain to itself all necessary powers for the regulation and control and the prevention of misuse of funds and exploitation of gwleless members of the public. In the case of lotteries authorised by the Governments of other States it may be d1fficult and eyen impossible for theGovern· ment of Maharashtra to take adequate regulatory steps to prevent abuse of the auth crity given by Governments of other States to non· Governmental agencies to organise lotteries. It may be equally difficult for the Governments of other States to take adequate measures for prevention of abuse of such authority within the State of Maharashtra. We are, therefore, satisfied that no hostile discri· mi nation' whatever is involved in not extending the exemption from the applicability of the Act to lotteries authorised but not organised by the Governments of other States. The Writ Petitions are accor· dingly, dismissed with costs.
N.V.K.
f'etition dismissed.
E
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Maharashtra could constitutionally ban sale within the State of lottery tickets authorised but not organised by governments of other States.
Whether exempting lotteries specially authorised by the State Government under Section 32(c) discriminated against other States' authorised lotteries under Article 14.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H. Anraj and others v. State of MaharashtraExplained
H. Anraj and others v. State of Maharashtra
5 provisions across 3 enactments
J. K. Bharti
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Chinnappa Reddy
A.P. Sen
E.S. Venkataramiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
