Brand Marketing
FMCG firms cut senior roles by 32%; Total headcount shrinks 9.26% in FY25
Tamil Nadu to SC: Online Rummy, Poker not skill-based, must be regulated
In its defense, Tamil Nadu argued that the rise of online gaming has led to alarming social consequences, including addiction, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and even suicides.
Tamil Nadu has urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 2022 Act in its entirety, including its schedule banning online rummy and poker for stakes.
The State of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court of India in support of its legislative efforts to prohibit online gambling, including popular games like rummy and poker, asserted that the move is constitutionally valid and necessary to curb addiction, financial ruin, and a growing public health crisis.
The state's arguments were presented through detailed written submissions by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, challenging rulings by the Madras High Court. These rulings had earlier struck down portions of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2022, on the grounds that they violated constitutional principles.
The first SLP of 2021 challenges the Madras High Court’s August 2021 judgment that invalidated the 2021 Gaming Amendment Act, declaring it unconstitutional in its entirety.
The second SLP of 2024 contests the November 2023 ruling that struck down the Schedule of the 2022 Act, which classified rummy and poker as games of chance, and limited key sections of the Act only to games of chance—thereby excluding games involving skill.
In its defense, Tamil Nadu argued that the rise of online gaming has led to alarming social consequences, including addiction, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and even suicides. A letter from the state’s Director General of Police, dated October 18, 2024, cited 47 suicide cases between 2019 and 2024 directly linked to online gambling losses.
The state also cited findings from a committee chaired by retired Justice K. Chandru, which outlined how online gaming addiction disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, particularly the youth, by manipulating circadian rhythms, disrupting sleep, increasing impulsivity, and encouraging irrational financial decisions during late-night hours.
Tamil Nadu justified its authority to legislate on online gambling under four entries in the State List of the Constitution: Entry 1 (Public Order), Entry 6 (Public Health), Entry 33 (Sports and Entertainment) and Entry 34 (Betting and Gambling).
According to the state, the online format poses new and amplified threats to public order and health, making regulation and prohibition within its jurisdiction not just appropriate but imperative.
The state highlighted critical differences between offline and online versions of rummy and poker, asserting that while the rules may be identical, the digital versions carry a higher proportion of chance due to opaque algorithms, absence of physical cues, and faster gameplay. This, Tamil Nadu argued, renders even skill-based games like rummy susceptible to gambling-like behavior when played online.
The government's analysis noted that unlike offline games, online platforms have complete control over gameplay, enabling manipulation. Furthermore, anonymity and frictionless payments make it easier for players to lose control and suffer significant financial losses.
The state argued that the High Court misinterpreted past Supreme Court rulings—especially those involving betting and gambling laws—by claiming that betting cannot be divorced from gambling under Entry 34 of the State List. Tamil Nadu submitted that this interpretation ignored the broader legislative competence granted to states and was contrary to binding constitutional doctrines, including the principles of "pith and substance" and the "aspect theory."
Sibal stressed that the High Court’s judgments failed to account for scenarios where betting occurs on games of skill, such as third-party betting, where the bettor is not a participant. This, he argued, justifies legislative regulation even in cases involving games of skill.
Responding to claims from gaming companies that their rights under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) were infringed, the state asserted that no fundamental right is absolute. Citing precedent, it argued that the ban was a proportionate and reasonable restriction in the public interest, aimed at protecting health, preventing suicides, and maintaining economic stability.
The state also contended that privacy and trade freedoms cannot override the state's constitutional obligation to safeguard public welfare, especially when vulnerable individuals face predatory and addictive environments.
Tamil Nadu has urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 2022 Act in its entirety, including its schedule banning online rummy and poker for stakes. It emphasized that its legislation is consistent with constitutional values, grounded in empirical data, and crafted with a view to preserving public order, health, and morality.
Info Edge ups FY25 Ad budget to ₹373 cr to drive growth in Naukri, 99acres
The number of complaints filed under the POSH Act witnessed a sharp increase in FY25 compared to the previous financial year.