Abstract

India has one of the most convoluted gaming and gambling histories in the world. A dice was discovered by the archaeologists who contend that it dates back to 3300 BC and is made up of terracotta and sandstone. In this case, the petitioners, who were advertising and running prize tournaments in various Indian states, challenged the constitutionality of the Prize Competitions Act (42 of 955), Section 4 and 5, and Rule 11 and 12 framed under Section 20 of the Act. These petitions were filed in response to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Their argument was that a ‘prize competition,’ as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act, included not only gambling competitions but also those acts in which success depended to a significant degree on skill, and that the Sections and rules infringed on their (the petitioner’s) fundamental right to conduct business and therefore are violative of fundamental right guaranteed to every individual under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. They also contended that the said part of the Act cannot be severed from it, hence the entire Act should be declared as invalid. Application to all types of competitions by virtue of the definition in Section 2 (d), and that they were severable in their application to competitions in which accomplishment is not dependent on skill to any significant amount. In this case, doctrine of severability played a major role while giving the judgement by the court. As it was in dispute whether Section 4 and Section 5 and also rule 11 and 12 of the Act is void in its application to those competitions in which success did not depend on any skill. Hence, it was to be decided by the court with reference to application of doctrine of severability that a statute which is void in part will be treated as void in overall or whether the valid part is capable of enforcement. In this research paper, we will focus only on the significance of the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala case in establishing rules of interpretation .

Keywords