64 percent in Nagaland oppose legislation
The government of the Indian state of Maharashtra has responded to public interest litigation filed by a local gaming lawyer to discuss the Maharashtra Casinos Act, which was approved in 1976, but never notified or carried out. The PIL was filed by law student and website operator Jay Sayta, who discovered the legislation last year and has since pressed for a government review. In a statement cited by the Asia Gaming Brief, Satya said the government “issued a letter to me informing me that a meeting of the secretaries of all relevant departments, director general of police, Maharashtra as well as police commissioner of Mumbai has been called on 22nd April to discuss options to approach” the long dormant act.
“The options include notifying the law and formulating rules; recommending its repeal or introducing some amendments to improve the law. The government has also evinced an interest in studying gaming laws of other jurisdictions before taking a decision and mentioned in the letter that allowing casinos would increase the footfall of foreign tourists and bring in revenues to the exchequer. It has been a tough battle for me but I am happy that the government is taking this step based on my PIL,” he added.
Meanwhile, Nagaland recently became the first Indian state to introduce online skill games legislation that would regulate rummy and poker websites, reported CalvinAyre.com. On April 7, Governor PB Acharya signed the 2015 bill, and now will start drafting regulations and licensing details, a process that could take several months to complete.
Despite its passage in the legislature, many Nagaland residents remain opposed to the Online Skills Games Bill, reported the website. A survey conducted by the Morung Express found that 64 percent of the residents oppose online skill games legislations. One person polled said, “I do not think our people are aware. This is just another way for our beloved politicians to make money,” while another respondent asked if the legislators really know what the bill means, saying, “I am sure they are only thinking about the revenue and not looking at what it is going to do in our society… I think the government is only doing this for revenue collection and so I do not support it.”
Those who support the bill are hoping the government will have a “proper system in place and a mechanism to see that it is done properly.”
