'If you play Rummy, I’ll become Mummy': Tamil Nadu’s RMG case reaches final stage

In a courtroom exchange that blended wit with warning, the Tamil Nadu Advocate General quipped, “If you play Rummy, I will become Mummy,” capturing the state’s stern stance on real money gaming (RMG) during an ongoing legal battle in the Madras High Court. The remark, though light-hearted, underscores the deeper paternalistic approach the state has taken toward online gaming regulation.

On Monday, the Madras High Court Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekhar concluded oral hearings in a significant case involving online rummy and other real money games. The matter concerns the constitutionality of Tamil Nadu’s recent gaming law, which the petitioners argue places arbitrary and excessive restrictions on their operations.

Senior counsel Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of online rummy platforms, presented rejoinder arguments challenging the state’s regulatory push. He emphasized that online rummy for stakes has already received constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g) in two prior judgments by the Madras High Court. According to him, the burden now lies with the state to justify how a complete five-hour shutdown of business—from midnight to 5 AM—qualifies as the least intrusive method of regulation.

Poovayya also pointed out that while the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2023 have been notified, the corresponding Self-Regulatory Bodies (SRBs) are yet to be formally recognized by the Centre. He stressed that the authority to regulate online skill-based games lies with the Union government—not the states—under the constitutional framework.

The dispute lies a deeper constitutional question: who holds the power to regulate online gaming? Senior Counsel C Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners in earlier hearings, asserted that the Tamil Nadu government lacks jurisdiction to legislate in this domain. Citing Entry 31 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, Sundaram argued that matters relating to digital and online communication fall exclusively under the purview of the central government.

The gaming companies are contesting the Tamil Nadu law on three major grounds:

Curfew on Online Gaming: The law prohibits all online gaming activity from 12:00 AM to 5:00 AM. Petitioners labeled this blanket ban as arbitrary, contending that it unjustifiably restricts personal freedom without a proportional basis.

Aadhaar-Based Verification: Mandatory Aadhaar authentication for users has also been challenged as legally untenable. Petitioners argued that such requirements are not only technologically burdensome but also run afoul of existing provisions in the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which limit the scope of such data usage.

Jurisdictional Overreach: The core of the legal argument rests on the claim that only the Centre, through its IT Rules of 2021, can regulate online games of skill, thereby making Tamil Nadu’s regulatory actions unconstitutional.

With oral arguments now complete, the Madras High Court has directed all parties to submit their final written arguments by April 28, 2025. The matter is scheduled for hearing on the same day, primarily to take on record these written submissions.