Madras HC upholds Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Law, experts fear domino effect in other states
Legal experts predict that the matter will reach the Supreme Court, where a final call on regulatory authority—central vs. state—could be made.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a significant setback to India’s Real Money Gaming (RMG) industry, the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by top gaming operators, thereby upholding Tamil Nadu’s contentious online gaming regulations. The decision is expected to trigger a domino effect, as legal experts warn that other states may follow Tamil Nadu's lead, potentially fragmenting the regulatory landscape.
A bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar ruled in favour of the Tamil Nadu government, rejecting petitions filed by prominent gaming firms including Head Digital Works (parent company of A23), Games24x7, and Junglee Games. The companies had challenged the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, and key provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022.
The court observed that the State reserves its right to legislate matters related to Public health and more specifically the State Government’s competence to legislate on online real money games remain undeterred by virtue of Entry 6 (public health) and 26 (trade and commerce) in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The judgement reads, “This Court is of the view that any online games or online entertainment is subject to regulation when it affects the public health of people at large. The focal test is that the ill-effects of such online activity must be directly linked to the public health and must result in serious social repercussions if left unregulated.”
“Any such online entertainment/game/trade then shall be subjected to regulation. The State cannot remain a mute spectator when the population at large is exposed to serious physical, mental and financial risks due to a constant exposure to a specific online entertainment/games/trade. In circumstances where a total prohibition is not possible at least a minimum of regulation becomes a necessity."
Industry stakeholders have raised alarm over the far-reaching consequences. Vikram Lungi, a Professional Poker player and TN Lead, EPWA said, “This verdict directly impacts our ability to earn and compete. Real money gaming is not just a hobby for us it’s our livelihood. There are thousands of us whose careers depend on fair and open access.”
Lungi further said, “We hope that there’s no domino effect where other states bring in similar restrictions without understanding the realities of professional gaming. What starts in Tamil Nadu could slowly cut off players across India from opportunities we’ve worked years to build.”
Legal experts predict that the matter will reach the Supreme Court, where a final call on regulatory authority—central vs. state—could be made.
Jay Sayta, a technology and gaming lawyer, remarked, "This decision may set a precedent wherein other states may also try and impose similar restrictions and it may become impossible for RMG companies to comply with varying restrictions of different states. The matter is certain to be appealed in the Supreme Court, the apex court is ultimately likely to decide on the validity of such restrictions as also the long-pending issue of whether states or the central government have the power to regulate online real money games.”
Sayta said, “Ideally there should be unified regulations for online real money games at the central-level but the issue of legislative competence, i.e. whether states or central government can regulate the activity is still pending before the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, a collaborative approach of both centre and states is required to bring in model regulations for the industry.”
Asish Philip, Partner at Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, added, “The biggest hurdle to unified gaming framework is the lack of a binding central authority to ensure uniformity across state laws. While MeitY has proposed setting up of SROs, the actual implementation has not taken place. Further, the constitutional allocation of powers which allows states to prohibit games of chance and regulate games of skill has also promoted several states to introduce their own gaming legislations leading to a fragmented framework.”
The RMG companies specifically challenged the TNOGA (RMG) Regulations of 2025, particularly Regulations 4(iii) and 4(viii). The petitioners also sought clarity on other regulations, such as banning minors from playing, mandatory Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, monetary limits per player, and pop-up warnings about gaming addiction. These restrictions include Aadhaar-based verification for real money games (RMG) and a mandatory ban on gameplay between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m.
