Madras HC Upholds Night Ban On Online Real Money Games, Companies Argue 'Govt Can't Act As Stepfather'
Gaming companies had mounted a legal challenge against several provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 and the 2025 regulations.
The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of key provisions in Tamil Nadu's law regulating online gaming. The court ruled that the State’s actions are not merely paternalistic but are grounded in its duty to safeguard public health under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Gaming companies had mounted a legal challenge against several provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 and the 2025 regulations issued by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority. Among the contested rules were mandatory Aadhaar-based KYC verification and a restriction on playing real money games between midnight and 5 a.m.
Court Backs State's Right to Regulate in Public Interest
Rejecting the industry’s challenge, the Court noted that the State’s intention was not simply to act as a guardian but to promote the welfare of its citizens.
"This court feels that the submission by the State is not restricted to paternalism but goes a step further to ensure the health of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench observed.
The gaming companies had argued that these regulations infringed on the Right to Privacy, but the Court dismissed this, stating that the right is not absolute and can be curtailed for legitimate state interests.
"The Right to privacy comes with its own restriction," the Court noted, while dismissing the petition.
Companies Object to Mandatory Aadhaar KYC, Time Restrictions
Under the regulations, users are required to authenticate themselves with an Aadhaar-based KYC process. This includes a second layer of OTP verification sent to the phone number linked with their Aadhaar. Gaming companies argued that such stringent identity checks were excessive and that they should be allowed to use other verification documents approved by the RBI. They also opposed the five-hour "blank period," arguing it arbitrarily restricted gameplay.
Additionally, the companies accused the State of using regulation as a cover to effectively prohibit online rummy—something it had failed to achieve through earlier legal attempts. They argued that the new law was an indirect ban disguised as a regulation.
State Couldn't Act As 'Stepfather'
Another significant argument made by the petitioners was that the Information Technology Act, 2000, a Central legislation, already governed the digital space, leaving no room for the State to legislate on the matter. However, the Court found no merit in this, with its ruling indicating that States retain the authority to regulate issues concerning betting, gambling, and public health under the State List.
The companies had also criticised the state's actions as overreach, with one submission claiming, "the state could not act as a 'stepfather' to tell the players how to live their life."
But the Court remained unconvinced, holding that the regulatory framework was in line with the state's duty to protect citizens from harm associated with addictive gaming behaviour.
Top Headlines
