![]() ![]() Union of India (Supreme Court, 2005) courts have held that the States cannot exerciseĮxtra-territorial jurisdiction on any subject and thereby rejected the erroneous exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the States in the field of sports and entertainment in the said cases. Union of India ( Delhi High Court, 2009) and Zee Telefilms v. Notably, in cases such as Narinder Batra v. Article 245 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, whereas the States are restricted to making laws governing only the state. Similarly, on the point of inter-state trade and commerce, the territorial jurisdiction of the centre and the States is also clearly demarcated in the Constitution of India. Platforms for online gaming are internet-based and may have features akin to that of ‘intermediaries’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000 including services suchĪs interaction through chat features between users, etc. Article 246 of the Constitution, read with Entry 31 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution exclusively grants legislative competence to Parliament to enact laws for forms of communication such as wireless, telecom and broadcasting. Tipping point for X: Is the platform at risk of another massive advertiser exodus?Īrguably, constitutional provisions empower Parliament to be the legislating authority for online games of skill. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |