Madras High Court Upholds Night-Time Ban And Aadhaar KYC | State Empowered To Regulate Real Money Games In Public Interest
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, and the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025. The court dismissed all writ petitions filed by online gaming companies, player associations, and individual players challenging Sections 5 and 14 of the Act and the authority’s regulatory power. The Bench held that the State Legislature was competent to regulate online real money games, including games of skill such as rummy and poker, on grounds of public health and trade within the State. The court found no inconsistency between the State and Central laws, declined to apply the doctrine of repugnancy, and affirmed the State’s authority to impose restrictions such as time limits, age limits, and Aadhaar-based KYC verification.
The petitioners in the present writ proceedings comprised online gaming companies including Play Games 24x7 Private Limited, Head Digital Works Private Limited, Junglee Games India Private Limited, Winzo Games Private Limited, and others, as well as associations such as the Esports Players Welfare Association and individual players. These petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 5 and 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 (hereinafter “the Act”), and the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025 (hereinafter “RMG Regulations”).
The petitioners sought a declaration that the aforementioned provisions were ultra vires the Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the State of Tamil Nadu. They contended that the provisions encroached upon the Union List under Entry 31 of List I (dealing with posts and telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting, and other forms of communication) and Entry 42 (inter-State trade and commerce). The primary objection was to the application of the impugned provisions to online games of skill such as rummy and poker when played with money or other stakes.
Petitioners further submitted that the Central Government had already notified a regulatory framework for online gaming intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The IT Rules, particularly Rule 4A, governed online real money games and provided for self-regulatory bodies, grievance redressal, due diligence, and age-verification mechanisms. Therefore, they argued, the State’s attempt to regulate or restrict the same subject matter created a legislative conflict.
Another contention raised was that Aadhaar-based age verification mandated under Regulation 4(iii) of the RMG Regulations was contrary to the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and not authorized by a law enacted by Parliament. Petitioners argued that alternative Know Your Customer (KYC) documents recognized by the Reserve Bank of India should suffice. They also challenged Regulation 4(viii), which imposed a blanket prohibition on the operation of real money games from 12:00 midnight to 5:00 a.m., arguing that this restriction was arbitrary, disproportionate, and not supported by scientific or empirical data.
Further, the petitioners claimed that the prohibition disproportionately impacted their rights under Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on a trade or profession) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). They emphasized that both rummy and poker had been judicially recognized as games of skill and therefore did not fall under the ambit of gambling. In their view, the impugned law effectively criminalized skill-based gaming when played for stakes, which was constitutionally impermissible.
The State of Tamil Nadu opposed the petitions, asserting that the legislative intent behind the Act was to address the growing concerns about public health, financial distress, and social disruption caused by online gaming involving monetary stakes. The State invoked its legislative powers under Entry 6 (public health and sanitation) and Entry 26 (trade and commerce within the State) of List II of the Seventh Schedule to justify its competence to enact the law.
The State argued that the law was enacted following the recommendations of a five-member expert committee chaired by a retired judge of the High Court and was based on stakeholder inputs, including those from gaming industry representatives, think tanks, political parties, and social activists. The legislative history also included an earlier attempt through the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which was struck down by the High Court. However, the court in that judgment had explicitly noted that the State was not precluded from enacting appropriate legislation that conformed to constitutional standards.
The State submitted that the 2022 Act did not impose a blanket prohibition on all online games but only prohibited online gambling and regulated online games, including real money games. Section 5 empowered the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority to frame regulations, including those relating to time limits, age restrictions, monetary caps, and procedural requirements for service providers. Section 14 prescribed penalties for violation of the Act.
The State further submitted that the IT Rules, 2021 had not yet become enforceable in respect of online real money games due to the absence of notified self-regulatory bodies, and that no active conflict existed between the Central and State regulatory frameworks. The State maintained that its actions were aimed at filling a regulatory vacuum and ensuring responsible gaming practices.
The court noted that similar regulations existed in other States such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and that commercial establishments in Tamil Nadu also operated under time restrictions. The State emphasized that online gaming between midnight and 5:00 a.m. had been linked to higher addiction risks, disrupted sleep, and even incidents of suicide due to financial losses, citing data from the Director General of Police reporting 47 such cases between 2019 and 2024.
The respondents included the State Government, represented by the Advocate General and various Special Government Pleaders, the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority, and the Union of India represented by the Additional Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General of India. The respondents defended the constitutional vires of the Act and submitted that the provisions were consistent with the objectives of public health, consumer protection, and orderly regulation of online platforms.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, delivered a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legislative, and regulatory questions arising from the petitions. The court began by recalling that the very same Act—the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022—had been upheld in the earlier All India Gaming Federation (AIGF) 2023 Judgment, where the inclusion of rummy and poker in the schedule as games of chance had been struck down. The remainder of the Act, including the power to make regulations under Section 5, had been upheld.
The court observed: “The Hon’ble Division Bench had elaborately examined both the aspects of legislative competence and validity of the Act, 2022 and has held as follows: ‘we hold that the impugned Act, in its entirety, need not be held to be ultra vires.’” It further noted: “The State is competent to legislate to the extent of prohibiting online gambling, i.e., games of chance, at the same time, it has got the authority to regulate online games of skill.”
Regarding the key challenge to Section 5, which empowers the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority to make regulations, the court referred to paragraph 124 of the AIGF judgment and recorded: “The State may make regulations as contemplated under Section 5 of the impugned Act, thereby providing reasonable regulations for the time limit, age restriction or such other restrictions in regard to playing of online games.”
The court categorically held that the doctrine of res judicata applied to the present case: “Hence the issue contended before us has already been settled by the Hon’ble High Court, and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has clearly upheld the power of the State Government under Section 5 of the Act, 2022.”
On the challenge under Article 246 and the argument that regulation of online real money games fell exclusively within the Union List, the court stated: “A bare perusal of these entries reveal that both the subject matters are not in conflict with each other. They thrive in their own separate domains.” It held that “the doctrine of repugnancy does not arise here,” citing settled constitutional jurisprudence.
Referring to the application of the doctrine of pith and substance, the court observed: “Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the entries in the Central List, the constitutionality of the law may be upheld… if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act, it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List.”
On the issue of Aadhaar-based KYC verification under Regulation 4(iii), the court noted the petitioners’ objection that such a mechanism required express parliamentary authorisation under the Aadhaar Act. However, the court recorded: “The respondent further submitted that some of the online gaming apps/companies… have complied with the Aadhaar two factor KYC verification process.” It also noted: “It is pertinent to note that this authentication mechanism merely enables the verification of the age of the user and the Central Repository does not share any information of the Aadhaar holder with the requesting entity.”
The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the mandatory Aadhaar requirement was disproportionate, observing that: “The other ID proofs, though act as valid identification proof, are not backed by an infrastructure which facilitates verification by a private entity.”
On the challenge to Regulation 4(viii), which imposed blank hours from midnight to 5:00 a.m., the court considered scientific studies, public health data, and the 47 suicide cases reported due to online gaming addiction. It recorded: “The adverse effects is much larger to the people than the need for securing the individual right to free trade. Regulation becomes a priority to ensure the safety and protection of the general public.”
The court acknowledged that “in a Country like ours… it would be impossible to expect every individual accessing the game to have 100% knowledge about the consequences or risks that is involved.” It emphasized the growing access to smartphones and internet connectivity among vulnerable groups, stating: “It is only in recent time that there is a widespread access to internet and smartphones enabling people to access an assortment of online entertainment/games/trade.”
Addressing the petitioners’ argument of unequal treatment between RMG platforms and OTT or other entertainment platforms, the court drew a distinction: “The contention… that no blank hours was imposed by the State in watching movies on Netflix and Prime is unsustainable as there are no stakes involved.” It concluded: “It is only in Online RMGs where there are stakes involved and the players get attracted by the prospect of rewards, which could lead to addictive behaviour…”
The court reiterated the State’s obligation under Articles 39 and 47 of the Constitution, noting: “It is only the duty of the State as enunciated in Article 39 of Part IV of the Constitution… to ensure that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”
On the final question of legislative competence, the court held: “The fundamental purpose of this piece of legislation is to protect public health and regulate trade within the State, which squarely falls within the legislative competence of the State.”
The court concluded: “This Court on perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2022 finds no contradictions or provisions that run contrary to the Central Rules in force.”
The court found no merit in the petitioners’ challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, or the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025.
The Bench unequivocally stated: “Hence the legislative competence of the State Government to regulate the online games of skill has been upheld. On this ground, it can be said that the present writ petitions are barred by res judicata.”
The court observed that the issues raised in the present batch of petitions had already been addressed and settled by the earlier Division Bench judgment in All India Gaming Federation vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the court upheld the State’s power under Section 5 of the Act to frame regulations, including for games of skill. In view of this, the present challenge was dismissed.
The Bench directed that: “The present writ petitions challenging Sections 5 and 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, and the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, are dismissed in their entirety.”
Further, the court stated: “This Court views that the State Government is fully within its competence to enact laws pertaining to online real money games. This Court on perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2022 finds no contradictions or provisions that run contrary to the Central Rules in force.”
The court did not strike down any portion of the Act or the regulations. It confirmed that: “The State may make regulations as contemplated under Section 5 of the impugned Act, thereby providing reasonable regulations for the time limit, age restriction or such other restrictions in regard to playing of online games.”
Finally, it was recorded: “In the light of the aforesaid, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Mr. C. Mani Shankar, Mr. Aryama Sundaram, Mr. Satish Parasaran, Mr. Abhishek Malhotra (All Senior Advocates) along with Mr. Akhil Anand, Mr. R. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam, Mr. R. S. Diwaagar, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Ms. Durga Bose Gandham, Mr. Y. Sankeeth Vittal, Ms. Deepika Murali, Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Mr. Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan, Mr. Ajithkumar Pugazhenthi, Mr. M.S. Bharath, and Mr. Jacob Kurian
For the Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader; Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa; Mr. A. R. L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Play Games 24x7 Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Case Number: W.P.Nos.6784, 6794, 6799, 6970, 8832, and 13158 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar
[Read/Download order]
