High Court of Bombay at Goa Examines Constitutional Challenge to Goa Public Gambling Act Provisions Restricting Casino Entry to Tourists. Petitioner, a Permanent Resident of Goa, Challenges Discriminatory Bar on Non-Tourists Under Sections 13D(e) and 13G of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976.

Writ petition and civil review application challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976 that restrict entry to casinos to tourists only.

Petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 13D(e) and 13G read with Sections 2(7) and 2(8) of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976 are unconstitutional and void, and to be allowed entry to casinos as a non-tourist resident of Goa.

Petitioner, a permanent resident of Goa, was barred from entering casinos due to Section 13G requirement of a valid tourist permit, which he contends violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating between tourists and non-tourists.

Whether Section 13D(e) and 13G read with Sections 2(7) and 2(8) of Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976 violate Article 14 and Article 13(2) of Constitution by discriminating between tourists and non-tourists. Whether the classification between tourists and permanent residents of Goa is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Whether gambling activity can be equated with a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) and whether restrictions on entry to casinos can be justified for general public welfare.

Petitioner argued that impugned provisions violate Article 14 as they discriminate between tourists and non-tourists; tourist/non-tourist classification fails reasonable classification test; no intelligible differentia or rational nexus; object itself discriminatory; petitioner has personal right to visit casinos but barred. Respondent argued that gambling cannot be equated with trade/commerce or fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g); even if it is, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in interest of general public; no unfettered right to carry on dangerous or immoral business; as a welfare state, state must protect citizens from poverty and addiction; restriction on persons domiciled in Goa is in interest of welfare of society; tourists come for short period and have limited opportunity, while allowing residents might have adverse effect; classification between domiciled persons and tourists is well-founded and does not violate Article 14.

Petitioner, who appeared in person, seeks to challenge in this Writ Petition the constitutional validity of Section 13D(e) and 13G read with Section 2(7) and 2(8) of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976. Petitioner contends that these provisions, inserted by way of amendment to the said Act, violate Article 14 of the Constitution as they discriminate between 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' in terms of the permissibility of entry into places where games, as authorized under Section 13A, are actually conducted and are consequently void as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General, at the outset, pointed out that the activity of gambling cannot be equated with any trade or commerce to assert any fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Section 19(1)(g).

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.72 of 2021 and Civil Review (Application) No.4 of 2021 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976. The petition was heard on 11 October 2021 and judgment was pronounced on 14 October 2021. The petitioner appeared in person and the respondent was represented by the Advocate General. Rule was made returnable forthwith with consent and at the request of the petitioner appearing in person and learned Advocate General; learned Additional Government Advocate waived service on behalf of the respondent.

• Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976: 13D(e), 13G, 2(7), 2(8), 13A
• Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 13(2), Article 19(1)(g)