ITANAGAR, October 01: The Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench, in its judgment dated September 24, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Likha Rajnik seeking directions against alleged illegal lotteries, lucky draws, housie and gift coupon activities in Arunachal Pradesh.
According to the court order, the petitioner had sought directions to the State authorities and police for effective implementation of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010, and relevant State notifications and orders. He had also sought action against alleged illegal and unregulated lottery and gift coupon activities in the State.
The State Government, in an additional affidavit, clarified before the court that the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 does not apply to local lotteries conducted by private individuals. However, it stated that Notification No. LOT-152/97 dated January 17, 2007 prohibits the conduct of local lotteries in Arunachal Pradesh.
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., observing that private lotteries fall within the State’s legislative field relating to betting and gambling. Their legality has to be examined under applicable State laws, rules, notifications and orders.
The court order also recorded the action taken by police on complaints concerning alleged lottery and gift coupon activities. In the case of the Dree Festival Gift Coupon Draw, the complaint was entered in the General Diary, an inquiry was conducted, notices were issued to the organisers and their statements were recorded. Preventive action was subsequently taken.
The court further noted that complaints regarding alleged lottery or lucky draw activities at Naharlagun, Seijosa, Namsai and Doimukh had also been acted upon by the concerned police authorities.
A significant part of the order concerns the petitioner’s own involvement in a gift coupon scheme. The court recorded that, during an inquiry, it came to the notice of police that Likha Rajnik had been associated with a “Pre New Year Gift Coupon, 2024” organised under the name and banner of Jegeyoma Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited.
The court order states that the coupon carried a ticket price of Rs 500 and promised prizes including a plot of land, cash prizes and consolation prizes. The draw was scheduled for December 27, 2024, at Nikum Niya Hall, Nirjuli. The police affidavit stated that Rajnik was the Organizing Chairman of the scheme.
The order further records that an FIR/complaint dated September 16, 2025 was lodged against Rajnik alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the Arunachal Pradesh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2012 and the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. The court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the truth of those allegations and that the criminal investigation would proceed independently.
Rajnik admitted before the court that he was involved in organising the gift coupon scheme. He explained that he had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, seeking permission to conduct the scheme, but was informed that lotteries were prohibited. He stated that he subsequently approached the Secretaries of the Law Department and Lotteries Department and received similar information, following which he withdrew the scheme and announced that the amounts collected from purchasers would be refunded.
The court observed that the petitioner’s own involvement in organising a similar gift coupon scheme, along with the criminal complaint lodged against him, were relevant facts which ought to have been disclosed when the PIL was filed.
However, the Bench did not record any finding that the PIL was instituted out of personal vengeance against any particular tribe or community, observing that there was insufficient material to reach such a conclusion.
The court also declined to grant the petitioner’s prayer for a blanket prohibition on all gift coupons, lucky draws, housie or festival-related activities. It held that whether a particular scheme constitutes a lottery, gambling activity or another prohibited activity depends on its nature, terms and manner of operation and the applicable law.
The court further observed that persons and community organisations that could be directly affected by such a blanket prohibition had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
Finding no ground to issue the general mandamus sought by the petitioner, the court dismissed the writ petition. It clarified that the dismissal does not permit any person, society, community organisation or other body to violate applicable law and that competent authorities shall continue to examine specific complaints and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
