Any Online Games Or Entertainment Is Subject To Regulation When It Affects Public Health At Large: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court remarked that the State cannot remain a mute spectator when the population at large is exposed to serious physical, mental, and financial risks due to a constant exposure to a specific online entertainment/games/trade.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that any online games or entertainment is subject to regulation when it affects the public health at large.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions preferred by the online gaming companies, player associations, and individual player seeking to declare Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gaming and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 along with the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025 [RMG Regulations] as unconstitutional in so far as its application to online games of skill played with money or other stakes.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar observed, “This Court is of the view that any online games or online entertainment is subject to regulation when it affects the public health of people at large. The focal test is that the ill-effects of such online activity must be directly linked to the public health and must result in serious social repercussions if left unregulated. Any such online entertainment/game/trade then shall be subjected to regulation. … In circumstances where a total prohibition is not possible at least a minimum of regulation becomes a necessity.”
The Bench remarked that the State cannot remain a mute spectator when the population at large is exposed to serious physical, mental and financial risks due to a constant exposure to a specific online entertainment/games/trade.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sajan Poovayya, C. Mani Shankar, Aryama Sundaram, Satish Parasaran, Abhishek Malhotra, Advocates Akhil Anand, R. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam, R.S. Diwaagar, Vinod Kumar, Durga Bose Gandham, Y. Sankeeth Vittal, Deepika Murali, Sandeep Chilana, Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan, M.S. Bharath, and Jacob Kurian represented the Petitioners while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan, Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Advocate General (AG) P.S. Raman, Special Government Pleader (SGP) T. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Amit Anand Tiwari, and Advocate B. Arvind Srevatsa represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The State of Tamil Nadu, in order to curb the ill 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 statute prohibited all forms of games being conducted in cyberspace, irrespective of the game being a game of mere skill, if such game is played for a wager, bet, money or other stake. The validity of the Act was challenged before the High Court in the case of Junglee Games India Private Limited v. The State Of Tamil Nadu (2021). The Court struck down Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which banned wagering or betting in cyberspace, as ultra vires to the Constitution.
Subsequently, the State Government enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 on the recommendation of a Five Member Committee under the Chairmanship of retired Judge of the High Court based on inputs received from seventeen stakeholders comprising of representatives from the online gaming industry, think tanks, political parties, players association and social activists on differentiation of real money games and other forms of games, to provide age and money restrictions, to ban advertisements, to prevent money laundering and to provide grievance redressal mechanism.
The 2022 Act was challenged by various gaming platforms including the Petitioners in All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (2023) wherein the Court upheld the validity of the Act while it struck down the Schedule which included Rummy and poker as games of chance. In the All India Gaming Federation Judgment, the Bench upheld the validity of the Act, but struck down the Schedule alone. As against this portion of the Order of the Division Bench, the State filed an SLP (Special Leave Petition) and the same is pending before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above regard, said, “Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions and the rights of the people at large must be balanced with the individual right to conduct trade. Article 19(1)(g) being a vital fundamental right cannot be used to deter the people’s right to life under Article 21. The Court ought to take into consideration the rights of the people as well, who are the players engaged in playing the online RMGs. Their rights are also enshrined under the Constitution and they deserve protection from the State as mandated under the Constitution.”
The Court further noted that when there have been several reports surfacing on the negative effects that the online RMGs have on the physical, mental and financial aspects of a player who in essence is not playing with another human but a pre-programmed computer, it would be only fair to ensure the right to life under Article 21 of the player is protected which also encompasses his right to health.
“In the eyes of this Court, the submission put forth by the State is not restricted to just paternalism but goes a step beyond in ensuring the physical, mental and financial well being of its citizens which is its incumbent duty to protect. Though personal autonomy ought to be given utmost importance as given in many other countries across the world, that cannot be a sole deciding factor. Other aspects including the impetus on health and welfare of the citizens also form the spine of our Constitution”, it added.
The Court observed that the character of the right was transformed into a fundamental right thereby immediately bringing within its fold the reasonable restrictions that is available to all other fundamental rights and hence, 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. … In view of the discussions in the aforementioned paragraphs, the Writ Petitioners have not made out a case to grant the relief of declaration as such sought for in the writ proceedings”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- Play Games 24x7 Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Case Number: W.P.Nos.6784 of 2025)
