A Midnight Ban On Choice? Madras High Court Judgment On Online Gaming Raises More Questions

The Madras High Court's ruling restricting online skill gaming hours raises concerns about individual liberty, state power, and economic innovation.

The bedrock of India’s online skill gaming industry rests on a series of pronouncements by the SC and various HCs.

Source : Getty

Editor's Note: This article is a part of a two-story series, spotlighting the restrictions on online skill-based gaming. The view below is from an independent legal advisor.
Click here to know about the key clarifications on the Madras High Court upholding Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority's power to regulate real-money-based online gaming, citing health concerns. 

The Madras High Court’s recent ruling, imposing temporal restrictions on online skill gaming, is a development that has sent ripples of disquiet through India’s burgeoning digital economy. While ostensibly grounded in concerns over mental health, social disruption, and addictive behaviour, this judgment risks overstepping constitutional bounds, thereby setting a precarious precedent for individual liberty, the scope of state power, and the trajectory of economic innovation. This article posits that the ruling, far from being a reasoned exercise in judicial oversight, is a disproportionate intervention that warrants rigorous scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

Games of Skill: A Constitutionally Protected Activity

The bedrock of India’s online skill gaming industry rests on a series of pronouncements by the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, which have consistently distinguished games of skill, such as rummy, poker, and fantasy sports, from mere gambling. These judicial pronouncements have unequivocally affirmed that such activities, by virtue of their reliance on intellect, training, and strategic acumen, constitute legitimate business activities protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The impugned judgment, by curtailing the ability to engage in skill games during "late-night hours," implicitly penalises an activity already recognised as lawful. If playing rummy or fantasy cricket is not per se illegal, then time-based prohibitions, absent a demonstrably compelling state interest and narrow tailoring, are not merely excessive but legally unsustainable. The very essence of a legitimate business, protected under Article 19(1)(g), is the freedom to operate within the bounds of the law, free from arbitrary temporal restrictions. The imposition of a "curfew" on a lawful enterprise, without substantive justification, appears to be an arbitrary executive action cloaked in judicial authority.

Restricting Adult Autonomy: A Perilous Precedent

India's democratic framework, a testament to individual liberty, enshrines the autonomy of adults to make informed life choices, including the selection of lawful recreational pursuits during their leisure hours. The High Court’s decision, however, attempts to superimpose a paternalistic framework that fundamentally undermines adult agency. It begs the question: are courts now to dictate the permissible hours during which consenting adults may engage in online chess, stream digital content, or participate in skill games after their professional obligations?

The implications of such judicial activism are profound and deeply troubling. This judgment risks opening a Pandora's Box, potentially paving the way for further encroachments on personal liberty under the guise of public welfare. The state's interest in public health, while legitimate, cannot be invoked to justify an indiscriminate curtailment of individual freedoms without robust evidence of direct and widespread harm.

Absence of Empirical Rigour and Regulatory Dialogue

A striking lacuna in the High Court's judgment is its apparent detachment from comprehensive empirical data. The ruling does not appear to rely on granular studies that establish a direct and widespread correlation between late-night gameplay of skill-based games and generalised social harm. A blanket prohibition, devoid of a data-backed risk assessment, not only undermines the principle of proportionality—a cornerstone of administrative law—but also disregards the imperative for reasoned state action.

The online gaming industry, a vibrant and increasingly regulated sector, has consistently advocated for, and indeed implemented, robust Responsible Gaming practices. These include, inter alia, self-exclusion mechanisms, deposit and time caps, stringent age verification protocols, and accessible grievance redressal mechanisms. Instead of fostering a collaborative regulatory environment or exploring the efficacy of such existing safeguards, the judgment has adopted a prohibitionist stance, eschewing the opportunity for a nuanced, stakeholder-inclusive approach.

Federal Competence and the Shadow of Overreach

This ruling raises significant constitutional questions regarding federal competence. While "betting and gambling" falls squarely under Entry 34 of the State List, skill-based online gaming, particularly when transacted across state borders, traverses into the domain of digital commerce and inter-state trade, a subject within Entry 42 of the Union List.

A time-based ban, particularly on national digital platforms, inherently impacts inter-state access to these platforms, thereby affecting businesses registered and compliant in other states. This may trigger scrutiny under Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution (freedom of trade and commerce) and Article 14 (equality before law) if similarly situated businesses in other regions are not subjected to such restrictions. The fragmented regulatory landscape that this judgment threatens to create could severely impede the seamless flow of digital commerce, a key tenet of a unified national market.

Economic and Employment Considerations Ignored

India’s online gaming sector is a burgeoning industry, projected to contribute over USD 5 billion to the national economy and generate tens of thousands of high-skill jobs. This sector has attracted significant Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), fostered robust compliance ecosystems, and positioned India as a prominent player in the global digital landscape.

A judicial decision that precipitously imposes time-bound restrictions injects an alarming degree of regulatory uncertainty, thereby discouraging long-term investment in a sector that the Government of India itself has acknowledged as integral to its "Digital India" and "Startup India" visions. The economic ramifications, in terms of stunted growth, capital flight, and job losses, are far from negligible and appear to have been inadequately considered in the judgment.

Legal Grounds for Supreme Court Scrutiny: A Multi-pronged Challenge

The Madras High Court's judgment, when viewed through the prism of established constitutional jurisprudence, presents several compelling grounds for challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

• Violation of Article 19(1)(g): Disproportionate and Arbitrary Restriction. The restriction on late-night gameplay is not a "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(6). For a restriction to be considered reasonable, it must bear a proximate and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and must not be excessive or arbitrary. The blanket temporal ban, lacking empirical justification and ignoring less restrictive alternatives, fails this test of proportionality. It constitutes an arbitrary curtailment of a fundamental right to carry on a lawful occupation.
• Article 14 Violation: Absence of Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus. The judgment fails to articulate an "intelligible differentia" or a "reasonable nexus" to justify why online skill gaming alone is subjected to nocturnal restrictions, while other digital entertainment options (e.g., OTT platforms, e-commerce, social media, online education) remain unrestricted. This disparate treatment, absent a compelling justification based on inherent differences or demonstrably higher social harm, smacks of discrimination and violates the equality mandate of Article 14.
• Lack of Legislative Backing: Judicial Overreach into Policy Domain. The restriction appears to be a judicially imposed policy without a specific legislative mandate or a detailed rule-based framework for such curtailment. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply existing laws, not to legislate. Imposing such a broad prohibition without explicit legislative backing constitutes an encroachment on the legislative domain, particularly given the complex economic and social implications.
• Failure of Due Process and Natural Justice: Ignoring Stakeholder Consultation. The judgment, by all appearances, lacks robust stakeholder consultation, ignores readily available empirical data, and disregards existing self-regulatory codes voluntarily adopted by industry platforms. The principles of natural justice and due process demand that a decision impacting fundamental rights and economic activity be preceded by an opportunity for affected parties to be heard and for all relevant facts and mitigating measures to be considered.
• Interference with Freedom of Trade and Commerce (Articles 301-304): Impeding National Digital Commerce. Blanket restrictions on national digital platforms that serve users across states directly impinge upon the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India, guaranteed under Articles 301 to 304. Such restrictions create internal trade barriers and undermine the concept of a unified national market for digital services.
• Slippery Slope of Moral Policing: Threat to Broader Personal Freedoms. The justification for time-based bans on skill games, ostensibly under the guise of public health, sets a dangerous precedent. If this logic is extended, what prevents similar temporal bans on content platforms, nightlife establishments, food delivery services, or any other activity deemed to have potential, albeit unproven, negative societal impacts? This trajectory leads down a slippery slope towards an intrusive regime of moral policing that is antithetical to a liberal democratic society.

Towards Nuanced Regulation, Not Sweeping Restriction

The exigency of the hour demands a paradigm shift from sweeping restrictions to nuanced regulation. Courts, as custodians of justice and constitutional values, must encourage and facilitate a consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders: industry players, health professionals, digital policy experts, economists, and law enforcement. This collaborative approach is essential to devise a balanced regulatory framework that addresses legitimate concerns without stifling innovation, trampling on individual liberties, or undermining economic growth.

India's courts have a storied tradition of upholding freedom, fostering entrepreneurship, and championing digital innovation. The online gaming industry, alongside the broader digital economy, holds out the hope that this spirit of judicious equilibrium will prevail in the appellate proceedings, thereby ensuring that progress and personal autonomy are not sacrificed at the altar of unproven fears and uncalibrated interventions. The future of India’s digital aspirations hinges on such judicious balancing acts.

Rajkumar Varier is an independent legal advisor and former legal head with Airtel, Samsung, Disney Star, DEN, and ABP. He advises on real estate, media, technology, and policy matters across India and is a trusted partner for legal, regulatory, and forensic matters.

Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.