Day 8 Harish Salve Argues Online Gaming Isn’t Transfer of Actionable Claims
Day 8 of the Supreme Court hearing in the Gameskraft GST case resumed on May 15, 2025. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan continued hearing submissions by senior counsel Harish N. Salve.
Salve focused on the issue of actionable claims. He argued that casinos and online gaming platforms do not supply actionable claims. He distinguished between the creation and transfer of an actionable claim.
Citing the Transfer of Property Act, Salve stated that actionable claims refer to debts or civilly recognized beneficial interests. He argued that wagering contracts are void and unenforceable under Section 30 of the Contract Act.
“Gambling (assuming it is gambling on online platforms) and casinos can never be an actionable claim,” said Salve. He explained that wagering contracts do not hold up in courts of law.
He further added, “Unlike a lottery ticket, right to participate in an online game is not transferable.” Salve highlighted that lottery tickets are treated differently due to their transferability.
He also pointed out that the right to participate in an online game is not transferable, unlike lottery tickets. He added that casinos use chips for convenience, not as goods or services. Money, he said, is excluded from both definitions.
To support his arguments, Salve referred to judgments in Sunrise Enterprises and H. Anraj. He said that in Sunrise Enterprises, lotteries were treated as actionable claims only because the state granted them.
