A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The landmark judgment R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, [1957] SCR 930, pronounced by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, serves as a pivotal ruling in defining the contours of the term “prize competition” and the doctrine of severability. The petitioners, engaged in promoting prize competitions across different States, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5 and Rules 11 and 12 of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955 on the ground that it violated their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They argued that the Act’s definition of “prize competition” under Section 2(d) was overly broad, encompassing both gambling and skill-based competitions. The Union of India, however, maintained that the Act applied only to gambling competitions. The Court, analyzing legislative history and constitutional doctrines, upheld the Act’s applicability only to gambling competitions. It ruled that gambling did not constitute trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and, therefore, could be regulated or prohibited entirely. Furthermore, the Court articulated and applied the principle of severability, affirming that even if part of a statute is unconstitutional, the remaining portion can still stand if it is severable. The case reaffirmed State competence in regulating gambling and set a precedent for statutory interpretation and constitutional scrutiny.

Keywords: Prize Competitions, Gambling, Severability, Article 19(1)(g), Legislative Competence, Fundamental Rights

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India

ii) Case Number:
Writ Petitions Nos. 78-80, 93 and 152 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date:
April 9, 1957

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
S. R. Das C.J., Venkatarama Ayyar J., B.P. Sinha J., S.K. Das J., P.B. Gajendragadkar J.

vi) Author:
Justice Venkatarama Ayyar

vii) Citation:
AIR 1957 SC 628; [1957] SCR 930

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6), Article 32, Article 252(1) of the Constitution of India; Prize Competitions Act, 1955 (Sections 2(d), 4, 5, 20); Prize Competitions Rules (Rules 11, 12)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None directly overruled; distinguished several cases

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Commercial Law, Gaming and Wagering Laws

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The Prize Competitions Act, 1955 was enacted following resolutions passed by several State legislatures under Article 252(1) of the Constitution, authorising the Parliament to legislate on prize competitions, a subject generally within State List Entry 34 (Betting and Gambling). This was primarily a response to the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1948, which sought to tax and regulate competitions. That law was circumvented when competition organisers relocated to other States, continuing their business across State borders. The constitutional conundrum arose due to these cross-border ramifications. Parliament enacted the 1955 Act with the stated object of controlling such competitions. The petitioners contended that the restrictions infringed upon their fundamental rights, especially under Article 19(1)(g). The Act limited the number of entries (2,000), the value of prizes (₹1,000 per month), and required licenses. This led to the present writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners were involved in running prize competitions across multiple Indian States. They challenged Sections 4 and 5 and Rules 11 and 12 of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, asserting that the restrictions on entry limits, licensing, and prize value were overly stringent. They argued these rules applied to all types of competitions, including those where success depended substantially on skill, not just on chance. They contended this violated Article 19(1)(g) and was not saved by Article 19(6). The Union, in contrast, maintained that the law targeted gambling, not skill-based contests. The Act defined “prize competition” broadly under Section 2(d) and regulated it through quantitative restrictions and procedural mandates. The crux was whether this definition included non-gambling contests and whether the invalid parts of the law rendered the entire Act unconstitutional.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the term “prize competition” under Section 2(d) of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955 includes competitions predominantly involving skill.
ii) Whether Sections 4 and 5 and Rules 11 and 12 of the Act violate Article 19(1)(g) and are not saved by Article 19(6).
iii) Whether the impugned provisions are severable, i.e., can valid parts survive even if some are unconstitutional.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioners submitted that Section 2(d) covered competitions not merely of chance but also of skill. This overbreadth meant that the statute covered lawful activities, infringing on business rights under Article 19(1)(g)[1]. They argued that Sections 4 and 5 and Rules 11 and 12 imposed severe restrictions amounting to a virtual ban, which failed the test of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). They also urged that since the Act did not make any distinction between gambling and skill-based competitions, it should be struck down entirely as an indivisible whole.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that “prize competition”, properly interpreted, referred only to gambling activities[2]. Gambling is considered res extra commercium (outside commerce) and hence, does not fall under Article 19(1)(g). Thus, no question of reasonable restrictions arose. Even assuming overbreadth, the provisions could still be severed, preserving the constitutional portions. The State relied on The State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla, (1957) SCR 874, arguing that the Act rightly limited gambling contests without affecting legitimate businesses[3].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
ii) Article 19(6): Permits State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public.
iii) Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies.
iv) Article 252(1): Authorizes Parliament to legislate on State subjects if two or more States consent.
v) Prize Competitions Act, 1955, Sections 2(d), 4, 5 and 20
vi) Prize Competitions Rules, Rules 11 and 12

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court held that the expression “prize competition” in Section 2(d) referred only to gambling competitions, based on legislative intent and statutory construction[4]. It observed that gambling is not protected under Article 19(1)(g), as reiterated in The State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla, (1957) SCR 874. Therefore, any restrictions on gambling cannot be challenged under Article 19(1)(g). Furthermore, even assuming an overbroad definition, the Act was severable and the valid portions (i.e., regulating gambling) could be upheld. The doctrine of severability allowed for partial invalidation where applicable.

b. OBITER DICTA
The Court emphasized that in interpreting a statute, a literal reading is not enough. Courts must also look at the history, purpose, and mischief sought to be addressed by the legislation. It reiterated the principles from Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a regarding mischief rule of interpretation[5].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Courts must interpret ambiguous provisions in light of legislative history and objective.

• Severability can apply even when the invalidity arises from constitutional prohibition, not just legislative incompetence.

• Gambling activities fall outside the ambit of Article 19(1)(g) and can be regulated or prohibited entirely.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case is a seminal judgment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It settled the position that gambling is res extra commercium and not protected under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court also advanced Indian jurisprudence on severability, aligning it with U.S. and Canadian legal doctrines. The Court prudently balanced fundamental rights and societal interests, affirming the validity of regulations on gambling while safeguarding legitimate competitions of skill. It adopted a purposive interpretation and warned against literalism in statutory construction. This case has since become a touchstone for understanding business rights, gambling laws, and constitutional interpretation in India.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:
[1] The State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla, (1957) SCR 874
[2] Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603
[3] In re Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, (1941) FCR 12
[4] Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh, (1946) FCR 1
[5] Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594
[6] Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1950) SCR 759
[7] State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, (1951) SCR 682
[8] State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., (1953) SCR 1069

b. Important Statutes Referred:

• Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), 32, 252(1))

• Prize Competitions Act, 1955 (Sections 2(d), 4, 5, 20)

• Prize Competitions Rules, 1955 (Rules 11 and 12)