The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld the regulations introduced in Tamil Nadu to limit the number of hours one can play online rummy, poker and other similar games which use real money for rewards (Play Games 24x7 Private Limited and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.). The regulations bar logging into such games between 12 am and 5 am.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar also upheld the regulations mandating Aadhaar authentication before a player can register to play such games.
The Court passed the verdict on a batch of petitions by several gaming platforms including Play Games 24x7 Private Limited, Junglee Games and Esport Players Welfare Association.
Under challenge where provisions of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025.
The Court reasoned that there is a difference between such other online content and online gaming as the latter involves real money stakes.
"The contention of the Petitioners that no blank hours was imposed by the State in watching movies on Netflix and Prime is unsustainable as there are no stakes involved ...Even in online games such as candy crush, it can be played entirely for free ... it predominantly operates on freemium model. But 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 and more often than ever tend to get lost in the pleasure of the game," the judgment said.
The Court observed that with real money games, a few initial wins could entice a player into getting addicted and eventually becoming 'lost' in the game.
"The dopamine rush may trigger him to play with his money again and again, thereby unaware of the financial loss he is prone to. In a Country like ours, which is still progressing, where we are yet to attain 100% literacy and the different categories of economic and social backgrounds from which people come, it would be impossible to expect every individual accessing the game to have 100% knowledge about the consequences or risks that is involved ... It is played more for the thrill of winning and a certain level of addiction sets in after a point. This addiction begins to tamper with reasoning abilities, thereby deterring the player's cognitive decision making abilities," the Court added.
Therefore, the Court saw nothing wrong with regulations that include a requirement that online gaming platforms should not allow users to log in between 12 AM to 5 AM, referred to as 'blank hours.'
The Court also rejected arguments that the State had no legislative competence to introduce such regulations and that only the Central government is entrusted under the Constitution with regulating matters that concern cyberspace.
The Court reasoned that the regulations were introduced in the interest of protecting the health of citizens and that public health was within the State's domain under the Constitution.
"It is a case of public health and the State has full competence to pass legislation to govern matters affecting public health," the judgment said.
Just because the subject matter of these regulations also incidentally concerns cyberspace, it would not prevent the State from stepping in on a matter which concerns the health of its subjects, the Court added.
The Court further pointed out that the State is also empowered under the Constitution to regulate trade and commerce, which would include online real money games.
“In true essence, the Online Real Money Games is a trade activity, which if left unregulated has immediate implications on health of the public," it noted.
Moreover, the Court agreed with the State's decision to require players to submit Aadhaar cards to verify the player's age before they are allowed to play such games.
"Other ID proofs, though act as valid identification proof, are not backed by an infrastructure which facilitates verification by a private entity … the scope of manipulation or deceit is comparatively lesser in AADHAR verification when compared to other ID proofs," it reasoned.
The Court also held that while personal autonomy is of utmost importance, it is not the sole deciding factor in deciding how far the State should regulate its citizens.
“Other aspects including the impetus on health and welfare of the citizens also form the spine of our Constitution … right to privacy carries with it, its own limitations and cannot be claimed in absolute. When put on a scale, a compelling public interest outweighs right to privacy,” the Court said.
