Right to privacy not absolute: HC backsnight ban on gaming

Hindustan Times

3 days ago

The Madras high court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu's online gaming regulations, which include Aadhaar-based verification, a midnight-to-5am gaming ban, and prohibition of minors from participating, dismissing petitions by gaming companies and ruling that the right to privacy is not absolute when weighed against public health concerns.
A division bench of justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar said the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, were reasonable restrictions aimed at curbing gaming addiction.
The ruling reinforces state authority to regulate online gaming and could set a precedent for other states grappling with potential addiction and negative social consequences associated with real money games.
The court held that the state was well within its legislative competence to enact the law in the interest of public health, public order, and regulation of trade and commerce.
'More often than not, the first right that is pleaded for in cases such as this is the right to privacy as upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy case (2017). But it must be essentially understood that the Puttaswamy case did not affirm the right to privacy as an absolute right,' the bench said.
It added: 'The character of the right was transformed into a fundamental right thereby immediately bringing within its fold the reasonable restrictions that are available to all other fundamental rights. So the 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 the right to privacy.'
Gaming platforms including Play Games 24x7, Head Digital Works, and Junglee Games India had opposed the mandatory Aadhar verification raising concerns about privacy and questioning if the State's verification methods were compliant with adequate standards of privacy and security.
They also contended online skill games were already governed under central law and that Tamil Nadu's regulations amounted to indirect prohibition of legitimate activity.
Senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Sajjan Poovayya, representing the petitioners, contended that the state law conflicted with the Information Technology Act and intruded into the Centre's domain.
The Union government through the Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, had argued that the central Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 already governed online gaming. It said that the central framework provides for a self sufficient regulation for the online real money games including the standards of due diligence, grievance redressal mechanisms, and age-appropriate access, etc, all of which were intended to provide a harmonised national framework for online real money games of skill.
The court rejected these submissions, invoking the doctrine of pith and substance to conclude that the legislation's core objective was 'public health,' placing it within the state's domain.
'In true essence, the Online Real Money Games is a trade activity, which if left unregulated has immediate implications on the health of the public. So, 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 judgment stated.
Citing expert committee findings, the court noted at least 47 suicides between 2019 and 2024 linked to online real money gaming addiction. The court observed that night hours saw higher addiction levels, with research showing increased dopamine levels and diminished self-control during that time, justifying the midnight-to-dawn ban.
On Aadhaar-based verification, the bench noted such verification was a robust two-step authentication process aimed at confirming age and identity to prevent misuse. 'The scope for manipulation is comparatively lesser,' the court held.
The bench said that while real money games like rummy and poker may involve skill, their digital format poses distinct risks, including anonymity, lack of physical cues, and higher potential for addiction.
'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,' the court noted.
On concerns that the law was paternalistic, the court held that protecting public health and well-being is a constitutional responsibility. 'Laws and policies must be shaped with that goal at the core,' it said.
The court concluded that the 2025 Regulations were a necessary response to a growing public health crisis and aligned with Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandates the State to frame laws that protect people's welfare.