In the case of the State of Meghalaya v. Union of India A State Government may forbid the sale of tickets for a lottery organised by any other State inside its borders, according to Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act of 1998, which gave rise to the controversy. Since Section 6 of the Act of 1998 gives the Central Government the authority to forbid a lottery from being organised in violation of Section 4 or from selling tickets in violation of Section 5 by an order published in the Official Gazette, it has come under fire. In light of violations of Section 5 of the Act of 1998, the plaintiff-State challenged Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Act of 1998. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 was also contested since it outlines the process for banning the sale of lottery tickets in accordance with the Act of 1998’s requirements.
As a result, the plaintiff-State requested that the challenged regulations be declared unconstitutional. The plaintiff-State also requested a permanent injunction preventing the Union of India from issuing orders under Section 6 of the Act of 1998 regarding the lotteries it had organized, preventing the UOI from initiating or taking any legal action under Sections 7, 8, or 9 for violations of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1998 regarding the lotteries it had organized, and preventing the States and the Union from cooperating with the UOI.
Whether the State of Meghalaya’s current lawsuit could be maintained?
whether the answers to the comparable questions pending before a Larger Bench are determined, could nothing else be done in the current lawsuit?
Observation of Court
The State of Meghalaya requested that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and Rule 5 of the Lotteries Regulation Rules, 2010 be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional in an original lawsuit by invoking the court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. The Union of India’s objection to the litigation’s maintainability was rejected by the Division Bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, who also said that the suit was maintainable in accordance with Article 131 of the Constitution.