SC rejects appeal to initiate legal action against Dream11
In April 2017, a rejected a complaint by an advocate, Var♒un Gumber, 🥀to initiate criminal proceedings against online fantasy sports website Dream11.
The court while passing the order noted that playing fantasy sports online does not amount to gambling and involves a substantial degree 🌠of skill. Justice Amit Rawal in his order also stated that the user has to be adroit and skillful in continuously monitor the sporting event, statistical performance of the players and previous track record, weather cond🗹itions etc.
The order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was seen as a significant boost to the nascent and burgeoning fantasy sports industry, since it was the first order of any High Court in the country that had analysed the format of daily fantasy sports and passed observations ruling daily fantasy sports to be a gꦗame of skill and holding it to be completely legal, even if there was stakes or money involved. The court in its order clearly and unequivocally rejected the plea of initiating criminal charges against Dream11.
It now turns out that the complainant, Varun Gumber, being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, had approacheꦍd the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition in August 2017.
A Supreme Co𝕴urt division bench comprising of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, through a terse order dated 15th September, 2017, had summarily dismissed Gumber’s petition.
This order is seen as a major victory for getting clarity on the legality of daily fantasy sports and one that puts to rest questions about the element of skill in෴volved in fantasy sports.
H🌱owever, the question that needs to asked is whether the non-reasoned and summary dismissal of the petition, which does not go into the facts and legal issues involved, is an unequivocal carte blanche from the apex court to fantasy sports operators and gives them a go ahead to run operations pan India?
The answer to this question would be in the negative. A summary dismissal by the Supreme Co♛urt without going into the facts and legal arguments of the matter cannot create a binding precedent. It can certainly be argued that the dichotomy in the 1967 Supreme Court judgment on rummy that rules that profit or gain made by the clubs in a game of skill could possibly be construed as an offence under the Gaming Acts has not been addressed in either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court.
Further, it is within the realm of possibiꦿlity that just like , other states can a🌼lso amend their Gaming Acts to remove the exemption given to games of skill and bring even games like fantasy sports within the ambit of gambling.
In conclusion, it can be said that while the Supreme Court order dismissing the c😼omplaint against Dream11 indicates that the findings and conclusions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling hold good, the entire issue of the model adopted by fantasy sports websites could possibly be revisited by the apex court, should any matter come up before it in future.
