LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Karnataka & Anr. Etc. vs State of Meghalaya & Anr. Etc. Etc.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 331Decided 23 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 10466-10476 of 2011
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Karnataka and Kerala had each passed state laws (the Karnataka Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 and the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005) to tax lotteries organised in their states by other State Governments, such as Nagaland, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. The High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala struck down these laws, holding that only Parliament - not the state legislatures - had the power to deal with lotteries run by a government, and ordered the tax already collected to be refunded. The taxing states (Karnataka and Kerala) appealed to the Supreme Court, while the lottery-organising states defended the High Court rulings.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that "lotteries" are a form of "betting and gambling," and while Entry 40 of the Union List gives Parliament exclusive power to regulate lotteries run by the Government of India or a State, this does not also take away the states' power to tax such activity under Entry 62 of the State List, which specifically covers taxes on betting and gambling. The Court reasoned that a subject being carved out of one entry (regulation) does not automatically mean it is excluded from a different, specific taxation entry with an overlapping subject matter. It also rejected the argument that the state laws were unconstitutional for operating "extra-territorially," holding that since the lotteries of other states were actually being sold and conducted within Karnataka and Kerala, there was sufficient territorial connection to justify the tax. The Court therefore set aside both High Court judgments and upheld the Karnataka and Kerala tax laws as validly enacted, meaning no refund was due.

Lesson Learnt

A state has the power to tax an activity conducted within its borders (like the sale of another state's lottery tickets) even if only Parliament can regulate how that activity is organised - taxation power and regulatory power under the Constitution can rest with different levels of government for the same subject matter.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case