‘My right to play is not up for regulation’ — Poker pro takes Tamil Nadu to SC
In the petition (a copy of which is with Storyboard18) Kumar submits that the new state regulations directly interfere with his ability to practice and earn a livelihood through online gaming.
ADVERTISEMENT
Professional poker player P. Vikram Kumar has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025. Filed as a Special Leave Petition (Civil) with a prayer for interim relief, Kumar’s plea contests the June 3, 2025 judgment delivered by the Madras High Court which upheld the contentious regulations.
The petitioner, P. Vikram Kumar, a Chennai-based internationally recognized poker player with over 18 years of experience, contended that the regulations framed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, impose unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on his rights to livelihood, personal liberty, and digital autonomy. Kumar, who has represented India at the World Series Poker Championship and received multiple accolades, including the ‘Player of the Year 2017’ by the Global Poker Index, derives his primary income from online and offline poker tournaments.
In the petition (a copy of which is with Storyboard18) Kumar submits that the new state regulations directly interfere with his ability to practice and earn a livelihood through online gaming. By enforcing blanket restrictions on online real money games between 12 AM and 5 AM, and mandating Aadhaar-based Know Your Customer (KYC) authentication by private gaming companies, the state has overstepped its constitutional powers.
The petition argues that the Madras High Court erred in dismissing Kumar’s writ petition by wrongly applying the doctrine of res judicata, claiming that the issues raised had already been settled in the All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu case. Kumar asserted that he was not a party to those proceedings, and that the legal questions raised in his case—including the personal impact and broader constitutional implications—had not been adequately addressed in previous judgments.
He argued that the requirement to verify user identity exclusively through Aadhaar for KYC purposes is unconstitutional, as it violates his right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, such a requirement being enforced by private entities, and not the government, further compounds the violation of individual rights.
The petition further states that the High Court assumed—without any empirical evidence—that online real money gaming is inherently detrimental to public health. This assumption, according to the petitioner, led to flawed conclusions that undermined the constitutional protections available to individuals under Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech and profession), and 21 (right to life and liberty).
Kumar’s legal team stressed that the High Court failed to conduct a proportionality analysis—a requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in privacy and free speech jurisprudence—to evaluate whether the restrictions imposed served a compelling state interest and whether they were the least restrictive means to achieve the intended objective.
The petition states, "The Hon’ble High Court has seriously erred in holding that the ‘blank hours’ imposed by the Impugned Regulations is reasonable. The High Court failed to consider that the Constitution guarantees individual freedom and autonomy, including the right to determine when one should sleep, and when one may access and play an online game of skill, within the privacy of one’s own home."
The petitioner contended that the “blank hours” ban from midnight to 5 AM was irrational and discriminatory. The restriction only applied to online real money games and not to other potentially addictive digital content or platforms, making it a case of unequal treatment without legitimate justification.
Additionally, Kumar submitted that the state’s attempt to regulate online gaming encroaches upon the exclusive legislative domain of the Centre under Entry 31 of List I (Union List) of the Constitution, which deals with “telecommunications and broadcasting, including internet services.” The central government, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, has already notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and their amendment in April 2023, specifically to regulate online gaming. The petitioner argued that the state’s regulations conflict with these central guidelines and are therefore unconstitutional.
Legal History and Regulatory Background
Tamil Nadu’s attempts to regulate online gaming have had a chequered legal history. In 2021, the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, which banned online poker and rummy as games of chance, was struck down by the Madras High Court in the Junglee Games case. The Court ruled that these were games of skill and thus protected under the Constitution.
Following that decision, the state enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022. While this law was partially upheld in the All India Gaming Federation case, the High Court struck down the Schedule that classified poker and rummy as games of chance.
Despite these legal setbacks, on February 12, 2025, the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority notified the “Real Money Games” regulations under Section 5 of the 2022 Act. These included provisions mandating Aadhaar-based verification, cautionary pop-up messages, and the 12 AM to 5 AM ban on gameplay. The new petition argues that the state is essentially attempting to achieve indirectly—through subordinate legislation—what it was prohibited from doing directly by the courts.
Madras High Court Judgment Under Challenge
The June 3, 2025 judgment of the Madras High Court dismissed Kumar’s writ petition along with other related petitions. The Court held that the State had legislative competence to frame such regulations under Entries 6 and 26 of the State List, citing concerns over public health. The judgment asserted that the restrictions were reasonable and in public interest, and that fundamental rights could be curtailed to ensure societal well-being.
However, Kumar’s petition criticizes this reasoning as legally flawed. He pointed out that the Constitution does not grant fundamental rights to “public morality” or “public interest” per se; instead, it allows only specific restrictions under Articles 19(2) to 19(6). The petition argues that invoking Article 21 of the Constitution to justify curtailing rights under Article 19 is unconstitutional unless the criteria for restriction—necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality—are demonstrably met.
The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to set aside the June 3 judgment of the Madras High Court and declare the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, as unconstitutional, void, and ultra vires the parent Act.
