…any online games or online entertainment is subject to regulation when it affects the public health of people at large
– Madras High Court
INTRODUCTION
The authors, in their previous article, “From Tables to Apps: How Poker and Rummy Still Navigate as Skill-Based Games and the Road Ahead[1]”, whilst examining the evolving legal landscape for online skill-based games in India, expounded on the rulings of the Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) with relation to the genesis of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 (“TN Online Gaming Act”).
This time the Madras HC was again asked to rule onto the aspect of online real-money gaming and the expanse of control which can be exercised by the State by imposing restrictions and conditions on the operations of online gaming platforms, particularly those offering games such as poker and rummy for stakes involving limits on timing, age and money.
The judgement in Play Games 24×7 Pvt Ltd & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu[2] has provided added insight as to where the Court has upheld the power of State to make rules and regulations in furtherance of welfare of people and public interest. In the previous challenges before the Madras HC – the court first struck down the provision in the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 (“1930 Act”) brought by way of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (“Amendment Act”) imposing a blanket ban on all games, regardless of being games of skill / games of chance, being played in the cyberspace for stakes in its ruling in Junglee Games India Pvt Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu[3], whereas in another challenge, the Madras HC in All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu[4], whilst upholding the constitutionality of the TN Online Gaming Act, struck off the accompanying Schedule that had wrongly categorised rummy and poker as games of chance, despite various rulings on the said issue by various courts including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Madras HC in All India affirmed the power of the State to regulate online gaming and impose reasonable restrictions over the same. The State has appealed the judgement of the Madras HC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is currently pending.[5]
In furtherance of the All India judgement comes the new ruling of Play India where the court has uphold the State’s exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the TN Online Gaming Act led to the genesis of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025 (“RMG Regulations”).
This article deals with the RMG Regulations and the three prominent issues which the Madras HC considered and ruled on, being: (i) legislative competence of the State to regulate online gaming and whether the RMG Regulations overstep on the toes of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”); (ii) imposition of “blank hours” by the RMG Regulations being unconstitutional; and (iii) requirement of Aadhar-based authentication being inter alia de hors of the Aadhar Act (this covers both age and monetary considerations).
I. LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE
Section 5 of the TN Online Gaming Act confer the power on the state to make regulations pertaining to online gaming in the state of Tamil Nadu. The Madras HC noted that this encompasses all kinds of online games, including online money games as the State is acting for the welfare of the people.
The Petitioners however indicated that the RMG Regulations qua online real money games are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, falling squarely within the Union’s exclusive domain under Entry 31 of List I of the Constitution of India (which includes telecommunication and digital infrastructure). Further, it was argued that the RMG Regulations are in direct derogation of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its associated rules, which provide sufficient and specific regulations for online real money games. Succulently put, the petitioners argued the doctrine of repugnancy as the State lacked legislative competence to independently frame regulations qua the subject matter, especially when central rules were already in place.
The Madras HC, however, declined and while placing reliance on Article 246 of the Constitution of India, was of the opinion that the powers adopted by the State in Entry II covers the subject matter of public health, and thrives in a separate domain from the Union List. Further, the court did not find any contradiction between the RMG Regulations and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 per se.
The Madras HC acceded to the adverse social impact of online gaming particularly keeping in mind a developing country like India, which has reported instances of addiction, financial losses, and suicides. The Madras HC further upheld that the actions of the State to put necessary preventive measures and/or develop rules and regulations to safeguard public welfare cannot be curtailed. The Madras HC held that the fundamental purpose of the RMG Regulations is to protect public health and regulate trade within the State, which squarely falls within the legislative competence of the State. Further, by applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Madras HC also forego any alleged incidental overlap with Union subjects being insufficient to render the subject provisions unconstitutional.
II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ‘BLANK HOURS’
The RMG Regulations, under Regulation 4(viii), prohibits all users from accessing online real-money games between 12 AM and 5 AM. The Petitioners challenged the same to be in violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, excessive, lacking statutory basis, and disproportionate to the purported aim.
The Petitioners argued that the TN Online Gaming Act contemplates individualised restrictions applicable to players playing on the platform, and not a curfew / blanket prohibition encapsulating online gaming intermediary platforms, as well, thereby holding them to be an unreasonable restraint on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Further, such a restriction was also argued to not have taken into consideration individual preferences and were deemed to be inflexible. Reliance was also placed by the Petitioner on the absence of similar restrictions on other online entertainment platforms (e.g., OTT streaming, social media and other games which may have in-app purchase facilities), citing the aforementioned restriction to be unreasonable and unfair.
Per contra, the State rebuked that the restriction imposed herein is reasonable for a number of reasons, including: (i) impact on such gaming on sleep which has detrimental impact on the public health (cognitive functioning, decision making, circadian rhythm, anxiety etc.); (ii) reduced monitoring at night resulting in increased chances of fraud, cheating etc; and (iii) addictive behaviour and suicides on account of the monies lost in online gaming. Therefore, the restriction was argued to be a calibrated response to mitigate harm and protect mental health. The State also argued that commercial premises in Tamil Nadu operate till 11 PM and pari materia the said timing restriction should also be applicable to such online gaming platforms.
The Madras HC, noting the expert committee findings and behavioural studies demonstrating heightened risk of compulsive gaming behaviour and other threats / risks to public health and safety held that the adverse effects herein are much larger to the people than the need for securing the individual right to free trade, and thus, the impugned regulation imposing a blanket time restriction was within the permissible contours of delegated authority.
Importantly, the Madras HC distinguished real-money gaming from other forms of digital content such as streaming platforms or casual gaming apps, observing that the inherent financial risk and psychological impact associated with monetary stakes necessitate a higher threshold of regulatory intervention. The court even distinguished between physical and online forms of game, noting the discipline involved in terms of playing the games physically, whilst online games are played “more for the thrill of winning and a certain level of addiction sets in after a point”.
The Madras HC concluded that the restriction, despite being general in nature, was proportionate to the identified harm, served a compelling state interest, and could not be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
III. AADHAAR-BASED KYC REQUIREMENTS
The petitioners challenged the exclusive use of Aadhaar for age verification, contending that other government-issued IDs (such as passports or voter cards) were equally valid and legally recognised. They argued that making Aadhaar mandatory excluded non-Aadhaar users and violated the proportionality principle under constitutional scrutiny.
The State defended Aadhaar authentication as the most robust and tamper-proof mechanism to verify identity and age. It pointed out that minors can easily access non-biometric documents, whereas Aadhaar-based OTP verification allows gaming service providers to effectively verify the age of the players and ensure that minors are prohibited from playing online real money games. Further, the State drew parallels to apps like Digi Yatra to provide assistance in verifying the phone number and age of the player, without gaining access to other personal information of the user.
The Court upheld the Aadhaar requirement, noting that it ensured secure and real-time verification and was proportionate to the aim of preventing underage access. The Madras HC also observed that the petitioners themselves had previously advocated for Aadhaar-based verification as a safeguard in its previous challenge in All India, and there was no constitutional infirmity in its use under the present framework. The Madras HC further sought to weigh in the effectiveness and safety offered by Aadhar based verification, vis a vis the scope of data use / manipulation / deceit.
The Madras HC was firmly of the opinion that as a welfare state, it is incumbent to protect the rights of the people, and the right to privacy recognised by K S Puttaswamy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when weighed against compelling public interests such as protecting minors and public health. The Court cited Supreme Court precedent that, in cases of conflict between individual rights, the test of larger public interest or greater community interest must be applied.
IV. PRIVACY, AUTONOMY, AND THE CHARGE OF PATERNALISM
The Petitioners further claimed that the impugned regulations were an overreach into personal autonomy and violated the right to privacy under Article 21. They argued that adults should be allowed to make their own choices, irrespective of their potentially harmful effect, provided those choices did not harm third parties. A corollary herein would be the legalisation and regulation of tobacco products, products of sin that are harmful to the consumer, but permitted to be consumed nonetheless.
In response, the State contended that the regulations were not rooted in paternalism, but in a constitutionally valid concern for public health and welfare. The State drew a distinction between private lifestyle choices and socially injurious behaviour, arguing that compulsive gaming, particularly when played for money, poses risks not only to individual players but also to their families and communities. Accordingly, it justified the time-based restriction and other safeguards as proportionate, evidence-based interventions intended to prevent exploitation, not moralise individual behaviour.
The Court held that the State was not merely acting as a paternalistic overseer, but as a constitutionally mandated guardian of public health. It noted that addiction, financial ruin, and mental distress associated with online gaming have ripple effects that justify intervention. The right to privacy, it reiterated, is not absolute and must be balanced against the legitimate aims of public interest.
CONCLUSION
While reaffirming that games such as rummy and poker remain games of skill, the Madras HC has further affirmed the balance required to be exhibited whilst regulating certain prominent industries / fields, online gaming herein, by holding several restrictions imposed by the RMG Regulations to be well within the State’s regulatory domain and consistent with constitutional principles.
In doing so, the Court has drawn a fine balance between commercial freedoms and the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens from the harms of digital gaming addiction. Whilst the appeal in All India remains pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the regulatory landscape remains fluid — but for now, the restrictions and the efforts of the State by way of the RMG Regulations stand judicially affirmed and only time will tell how the Hon’ble Supreme Court analyses the aspect of freedom of trade / individual preferences and right in relation to such activities vis a vis the welfare of the citizen by its State.
While measures aimed at curbing minor behaviour, ensuring monetary compliance and implementing AADHAR-based KYC are acceptable and aligned with regulatory models, placing such obligations within the framework of imposed ‘blank hours’ could be perceived as excessive or overreaching. On a lighter note, if the State were truly concerned about well-being in this context, it might have taken a cue from jurisdictions like France and Germany where laws have been enacted for the benefit of employees, including restrictions on employer communications after work hours, limitations on contact during vacations, strict rest-time protections and clearly defined working hour protocols.
The authors verily believe that the heart of the State and the court may be in the right, however telling somebody to do something at a particular time or within the confines of a particular time imposes a restraint which will lead to unnecessary and burdensome consequences such as penalties, offences, criminal implications as it is commonly seen that “more severe threats lead to greater reactance” demonstrating that compulsion often provokes resistance rather than compliance.
***
*Dr Abhimanyu Chopra, Partner at AZB & Partners.
**Kushagra Jain, Associate at AZB & Partners
[2] Writ Petition Nos. 6784/2025
[3] Junglee Games India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2762
[4] All India Gaming Federation v. State of T.N., 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6973;
[5] State of Tamil Nadu v. All India Gaming Federation, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1588-1592/2024.