Breaking: Big blow to RMG industry, Madras HC upholds Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Regulations
A bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar ruled in favor of the Tamil Nadu government, rejecting the petitions filed by A23’s parent company Head Digital Works, Games24x7, and Junglee Games and others.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by major Real Money Gaming (RMG) operators, thereby upholding the validity of Tamil Nadu's newly enforced online gaming regulations.
A bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar ruled in favor of the Tamil Nadu government, rejecting the petitions filed by A23’s parent company Head Digital Works, Games24x7, and Junglee Games and others. The companies had challenged the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, and sought to strike down specific provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022.
The RMG firms, all members of the E-Gaming Federation, had argued that the state’s regulations—particularly the prohibition on gaming between midnight and 5 AM—were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and discriminatory, especially in their application to online games of skill played for money. They sought to declare Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Act and the 2025 Regulations as ultra vires and void.
However, the court disagreed. In its judgment, the bench emphasized that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business, must be balanced against Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.
“Article 19(1)(g) cannot override the right to health and life under Article 21,” the court observed, underscoring the state’s “incumbent duty to protect the life, physical, financial, and mental health of the players.”
The judges held that the freedom to conduct business in the RMG sector is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly when public health and safety are at stake. Referring to the Supreme Court's landmark Puttaswamy judgment, which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the High Court noted that this right is not absolute and is also subject to restrictions when weighed against broader public interest.
Rejecting the arguments made by the petitioners, the bench concluded: “In view of the discussions, the writ petitioners have not made out a case to grant the relief sought for, and all the writ petitions are dismissed.”
The respondents in the case included the State of Tamil Nadu, the Director General of Police, the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
