“State Has a Duty to Shield Citizens from Addictive Online Gaming”: Madras HC Upholds Gaming Rules
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several real-money gaming platforms, including Play Games 24x7, Junglee Games, and Winzo, challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025. The court upheld the state's power to regulate online real money gaming in the interest of public health and welfare.
The verdict, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, concluded that the Tamil Nadu government acted within its legislative competence under Entries 6 and 26 of the State List.
The court emphasized, “The adverse effects [of online gaming] are much larger to the people than the need for securing the individual right to free trade.”
Key provisions such as Aadhaar-based KYC verification and the imposition of “blank hours” (12 AM to 5 AM) on gameplay were upheld. The court found these regulations to be proportionate and rooted in compelling public interest. “The right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to public interest when justified,” the Bench observed.
On the question of legislative competence, the court held that real-money gaming regulations fall under the State’s domain of public health and intrastate trade. It invoked the doctrine of pith and substance, observing that “once a law in pith and substance falls within a legislative entry, an incidental encroachment on another entry does not affect its validity.”
Citing the State’s constitutional responsibilities, the court pointed to the Directive Principles of State Policy. “The State Government’s competence to legislate on online real money games remains undeterred by virtue of Entry 6 and 26 in List II of the Seventh Schedule,” it said, adding, “The State has ample powers to protect public health.”
In Paragraph 36, the court directly tied the regulation of online gaming to constitutional mandates under Articles 39 and 47:
“It is the duty of the State… to ensure that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment… and to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.”
Petitioners had argued that such regulation violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. However, the court disagreed, noting in Paragraph 62 that “the action of the State is in furtherance of the constitutional obligations to protect the vulnerable sections of the society from the adverse effects of addictive online games involving real money.”
It concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the restrictions imposed were either arbitrary or disproportionate.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Aryama Sundaram, Sajan Poovayya, and others appeared for the petitioners. The state was represented by Advocate General P.S. Raman and Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, among others.
In dismissing the petitions, the High Court underlined the urgency and legitimacy of regulatory action. “Regulation is a part and parcel of any trade activity and the State has full powers to regulate trade within its territorial jurisdiction,” the court affirmed.
Case Title: Play Games 24*7 and Ors. v. State of TN