Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring Section 5(2) read with Section 14(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 (‘Act, 2022’) along with Regulation 4(iii) and Regulation (viii) of Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulation, 2025 as arbitrary, void, illegal and unconstitutional, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and K.Rajasekar, JJ. upheld the validity of the impugned Act and the Regulations introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu, which provide reasonable restrictions relating to time limits, age restrictions, and other regulatory measures concerning the playing of online games.
Furthermore, the Court held that the State Legislature is not barred from enacting laws to regulate online real money games (‘RMGs’). Such regulation, the Court observed, squarely falls within the ambit of ‘public health and sanitation’, which is a State subject under Entry 6 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Background
The State of Tamil Nadu, in an effort to curb the adverse effects of online gaming addiction, amended the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 by enacting the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021. The amended legislation sought to prohibit all forms of games conducted in cyberspace, irrespective of whether the game was one of mere skill, if such games were played for wager, bet, money, or other stakes.
The validity of the Act was challenged before the Court in Junglee Games India Private Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2767. The Court struck down Part II of the Amendment Act, which banned wagering or betting in cyberspace, holding it to be ultra vires the Constitution. However, the Division Bench held that the impugned Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 which amends the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution in its entirety and struck down as a consequence. Nothing herein will prevent appropriate legislation conforming to the constitutional sense of propriety being brought in the field of betting and gambling by the State.
Subsequently, the State Government enacted the Act, 2022, which aimed to regulate real money games, differentiate them from other forms of games, impose age and monetary restrictions, ban advertisements, prevent money laundering, and establish a grievance redressal mechanism.
The 2022 Act was challenged before the High Court in All India Gaming Federation v State of Tamil Nadu, SCC OnLine Mad 6973 (‘AIGF 2023 Judgment’), wherein the Division Bench upheld the validity of the Act but struck down the Schedule that classified games such as rummy and poker as games of chance.
Aggrieved by this portion of the judgment, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India, which remains pending as of now.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the validity of certain provisions of the Act impugned in the present writ petition had already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the AIGF 2023 Judgment. In that case, the same Petitioners who filed the present writ petition had challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022. The Division Bench had unequivocally upheld the power of the State Government under Section 5 of the Act, 2022, to frame regulations concerning time limits, age restrictions, and other such limitations on the playing of online games.
The Court highlighted that, as the validity of Section 5 of the Act had already been upheld in the AIGF 2023 Judgment, and the power of the State Government to frame regulations under that provision was affirmed, the impugned Regulations in the present writ petitions were a direct consequence of that judicial endorsement. Therefore, the foundational legal issues raised in the current petitions had already been considered and decided.
In view of the above, the Court held that the present writ petitions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they seek to reopen issues that have been conclusively settled by a competent Division Bench of this Court.
The Court observed that the main challenge in the present writ petitions was directed against Sections 5 and 14 of the Act, 2022, along with the Regulations framed thereunder. The primary contention of the Petitioners was that these provisions and Regulations, insofar as they pertain to online real money games, exceeded the legislative competence of the State Legislature and were therefore liable to be struck down.
However, the Court rejected this contention, holding that the State Legislature is not barred from enacting laws to regulate online real money games. The Court held that such regulation squarely falls within the scope of public health and sanitation, which is a State subject under Entry 6 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasised that online real money games, particularly rummy and poker,have demonstrably led to public health risks in the State of Tamil Nadu. This was supported by findings from expert committee reports, which detailed the serious mental and physical health consequences associated with such games. Thus, the Court concluded that this was a matter of public health, and the State had full legislative competence to enact laws governing such concerns.
Furthermore, the Court noted that, as held in a catena of decisions, the issue of repugnancy under Article 254(2) of the Constitution arises only where two inconsistent laws pertain to a subject in the Concurrent List. Since the present matter falls within the State List, the question of repugnancy did not arise.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the argument that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 already provide a regulatory framework for intermediaries, including online gaming platforms, and therefore, the State lacks the authority to frame subordinate legislation concerning online real money games in light of existing Central legislation.
The Court rejected this submission as untenable, holding that the State Government remains fully competent to enact legislation in respect of online real money games, particularly when such regulation pertains to public health, a subject within the State List. Upon a detailed examination of the provisions of the Act, 2022, the Court found no contradictions or inconsistencies with the Central Rules currently in force.
The Court further observed that the Regulations framed by the State of Tamil Nadu were an imminent necessity, given the adverse effects of online real money games as documented in the expert committee report. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the provisions relating to online gaming under the IT Rules, 2021, were yet to come into effect, and presently remain unenforceable due to the operational limitation imposed by Rule 4B of the said Rules.
In light of this, the Court held that a regulatory vacuum presently exists with respect to the governance of online real money games. The Court was of the view that the State Government had rightfully exercised its legislative competence by enacting the current legislation to address this gap.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that regulation is an inherent aspect of any trade or commercial activity and held that the State possesses full authority to regulate trade and commerce within its territorial jurisdiction, particularly when such regulation is necessitated by concerns relating to public health and safety.
The Court noted that the petitioners further contended that online real money games could not be regulated by the State Government, as doing so would encroach upon the legislative domain of the Centre under Entry 31 of List I, which pertains to matters concerning Information Technology.
However, the Court held that this argument was untenable when tested against the doctrine of pith and substance. According to this doctrine, if a legislation, in its true character and substance, falls within the legislative competence of the enacting body, it does not become invalid merely because it incidentally touches upon a subject falling within the domain of another legislature.
Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the impugned State legislation, though it may have incidental overlap with the field of Information Technology, is primarily concerned with public health, public order, and betting and gambling, which fall within the State List (List II). As such, the Act, 2022 was well within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and the incidental encroachment, if any, did not render the law invalid.
The Court viewed that any form of online gaming or entertainment becomes subject to State regulation when it poses a threat to public health. The determinative test, the Court held, is whether the adverse effects of such online activity are directly linked to public health and whether such effects may lead to serious social repercussions if left unregulated.
In such cases, online entertainment, games, or trade must necessarily be brought within the ambit of regulatory oversight. The Court emphasised that the State cannot remain a passive observer when its citizens are exposed to significant physical, mental, and financial risks due to continuous engagement with certain forms of online activities.
In situations where total prohibition is either impractical or constitutionally impermissible, the Court held that at the very least, a baseline level of regulation becomes imperative to safeguard the well-being of the public.
The Court highlighted that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). This right must be balanced against the collective rights of the public, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasised that the right to trade or business cannot override the right to life, which includes the right to health, particularly when serious physical, mental, and financial harms resulting from online real money games are well-documented.
The Court further noted that the players themselves, who engage in online RMGs, often against pre-programmed systems rather than human opponents, are entitled to constitutional protection. The State has a constitutional obligation to safeguard their well-being, and therefore, regulations aimed at mitigating the harm caused by such games are justified.
The Court rejected the argument that the State’s actions amounted to paternalism, observing that the State’s intervention was not merely protective but essential to ensure the public health and welfare of its citizens, a core value of the Constitution. While personal autonomy and privacy are important, the Court clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute. As a fundamental right, it is also subject to reasonable restrictions, and compelling public interest, such as health and safety, can justifiably outweigh individual claims to privacy.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for the relief sought. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions were dismissed.
[Play Games 24×7 Private Limited v State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.Nos.6784 of 2025, decided on 03-06-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice S.M. Subramaniam
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate for Mr. Akhil Anand Mr. R. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam Mr. R.S. Diwaagar , Mr. Sajan Poovayya Senior Advocate for Mr. Akhil Anand Mr. Vinod Kumar Ms. Durga Bose Gandham, Mr. C. Mani Shankar Senior Advocate , Mr. Aryama Sundaram Senior Advocate and Mr. Satish Parasaran Senior Advocate for Mr. Y. Sankeeth Vittal Ms. Deepika Murali, Mr. Sandeep Chilana Mr. Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan Mr. Ajithkumar Pugazhenthi, Mr. Abhishek Malhotra Senior Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. P.S.Raman Advocate General asst by Mr. T. Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader , and Mr. E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor , Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari Additional Advocate General asst by Mr. B.Arvind Srevatsa, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India asst by Mr. R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General of India
Buy Constitution of India HERE
