Madras High Court upholds night ban on online real money games in Tamil Nadu
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 3, 2025) upheld the validity of a ban imposed by Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA) on playing Real Money Games (RMG) between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. It also refused to interfere with requirements such as mandatory Aadhaar verification for playing the RMG.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by online gaming companies and others to declare as unconstitutional Section 5(2) read with 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act of 2022.
The petitioners had challenged the two legal provisions since they empower the TNOGA to impose restrictions such as time, monetary and age limits for playing RMG. The litigants had also urged the court to declare as null and void certain provisions of the TNOGA (RMG) Regulations, 2025.
Denying any kind of relief to them, the Division Bench held the State legislature was fully competent to enact a law governing online games by invoking Entry 6 (public health and sanitation) and Entry 26 (trade and commerce within the State) of List II (State list) in the seventh schedule to the Constitution.
'It is a well known fact that so far as online real money games such as rummy and poker, it has (sic) created public heath risks in the State of Tamilnadu. This is elaborated in the expert committee reports whereby these games have posed serious mental and physical health risks to the citizens in the State,' the judges wrote.
They agreed with Advocate General (AG) P.S. Raman and TNOGA counsel B. Arvind Srevatsa that the question of repugnancy would not arise at all in the present case since the State had not invoked any of the entries in List III (concurrent list of subjects on which both the Parliament as well as the State legislatures could enact laws).
The court also recorded AG's submission that the night ban on RMG had been imposed based on research findings that self-control would be much lower and the dopamine levels, linked to reward-seeking behaviour, would be much higher during night hours thereby making real money gaming more addictive.
On his part, Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, representing the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force, told the Division Bench that as many as 47 death by suicides, due to addiction to online games, had been reported in Tamil Nadu between 2019 and 2024 and it was reason enough for the State to regulate RMG.
'This court concurs with the reasons adduced by the State Government for regulating online RMGs. The adverse effects are 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 judges observed.
Disadvantages of playing games of skill online
Disagreeing with the argument of online gaming companies that there was hardly any difference between playing games of skill, such as rummy and poker, in person or through online mode, the court said, there were definitely certain risks involved when playing the games of skill through online mode.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Subramaniam said, when playing the games in physical mode, the players get to read each others' mind even by the slightest hand movement, body language and facial expressions. However, they get to lose this advantage while playing the games of skill through online mode.
In online mode, 'the players may not even know against whom the game is played... So it is imperative that the government take adequate steps to streamline and regulate these unexplored waters to ensure fair play and secure the physical and financial safety of the players indulging in these online RMGs,' the Bench said.
The court also held it did not find any reason to dilute the Aadhaar requirement since it provides for two-step authentication to confirm that the RMG players were 18 years and above. Further, the scope for manipulation/deceit was comparatively lesser in the Aadhaar verification process than others, it said.
Our country is distinct from the rest of the world
The Division Bench also rejected the contention of online gaming companies that the State could not adopt a paternlistic attitude and restrict their right to trade and commerce just because of some random suicides involving individuals who could not have control over their actions.
'Our country is built on a social and cultural fabric which is distinct from the rest of the world. A random comparison with the rights or laws prevalent in other countries cannot be blindly applied here... Protecting rights of the people is first and foremost as derived from our Constitution. Hence, laws and policies must primarily be focused towards this ideal,' the judges concluded.
(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha's suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Same-Sex Unions Not Marriages In Law But Queer Couples Can Form A Family: Madras High Court
Last Updated: The court invoked an emotional letter by late Justice Leila Seth and said not every parent is like her who could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation The Madras High Court recently ordered the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family, declaring that no adult can be detained against their will merely for choosing a same-sex partner. A habeas corpus petition was filed by MA, seeking the release of her partner, D, who her father and other family members had allegedly confined. D's (the detenue's) mother, who accompanied her, accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and claimed she was addicted to drugs—allegations the court found baseless after observing the detenue's composure and clarity. The bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan interacted with the detenue in private, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala, to ascertain her true wishes. The woman, a well-qualified adult, told the court that she is a lesbian and in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. She described being forcibly taken home, subjected to rituals intended to 'cure" her, and even beaten by her family members. Highlighting India's evolving legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, the bench referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NALSA v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the recognition of 'chosen families" in Deepika Singh v. CAT. The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'," the bench observed. 'To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?" the court said. The judgment concluded with a continuing mandamus directing jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple if required and restrained the woman's family from interfering with her liberty. 'We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own," the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent's social conditioning. The bench invoked a letter by the late Justice Leila Seth, who had once written emotionally about the criminalisation of homosexuality and the pain it caused families. 'What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love," she wrote. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation," the bench emphasised. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (2023), the high court stressed that it may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, but they can very well form a family. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family," the division bench held. First Published: June 05, 2025, 13:17 IST
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Man dies after getting stuck in fence while alighting train on wrong side at Mumbai central
Representative image MUMBAI: A 27-year-old man died after his neck got entangled in an iron fence while attempting to alight from a train on the wrong side at Mumbai Central station on Wednesday morning. The incident took place around 9.44am at Platform No. 4. The deceased, identified through his Aadhaar card as Dhila Rajesh Hamira Bhai, was found hanging from the iron fencing located between the Virar-blind fast line and the Stabling Line (STA). Eyewitnesses told officials that the man attempted to get off the coach from the side facing the tracks and fencing instead of the platform. In the process, his neck got caught in the fence, resulting in serious injuries. Emergency services from Ambulance 108 reached the spot by 10.14am and declared him dead on site. The body was then moved to Nair Hospital for postmortem. The on-site death was confirmed by doctor of the ambulance team. Railway authorities are investigating the sequence of events and have urged passengers not to attempt unsafe deboarding practices.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Madras High Court order on consecration rites in Tiruchendur temple
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 4, 2025) refused to intervene in a plea against a Madras High Court order constituting a committee to fix the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, Tamil Nadu. A Bench headed by Justice P. K. Mishra however allowed the petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple, to file a review plea against the High Court order. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the constitution of a committee of experts to decide the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony at the temple. The petitioner, in the High Court, had argued that he said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years. During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he had said in the High Court. He had argued in the High Court that the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
