I Am A Gamer. Does The Ban On Gaming Apps Affect Me?
IMPACT ON $3.8 BILLION GAMING INDUSTRY
The Govt's move to declare online gaming that involves real money will impact India's $3.8 billion gaming industry. The real-money gaming sector, reportedly accounts for approximately 86 percent
It no longer makes a distinction between skill and gambling. Under the bill gaming apps that require users to pay money to win cash will be banned.
According to All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS), the industry has attracted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) of over ₹25,000 crore till June 2022 and currently supports over two lakh direct and indirect jobs.
WHICH ARE THESE GAMING PLATFORMS?
Dream 11, Howzat-Fantasy Cricket App, SG11, WinZo, Games24- My11Circle, RummyCircle, 7. Junglee Games (Junglee Rummy, Junglee Poker), PokerBaazi, GamesKraft, MyTeam11, Nazara Technologies and many others
WHY IS THE GOVT BANNING RMG APPS?
The Bill says unchecked expansion of online money gaming services has been linked to 'unlawful activities including financial fraud, money-laundering, tax evasion, and in some cases, the financing of terrorism, thereby posing threats to national security, public order and the integrity of the State
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES?
Anyone offering a RMG platform will be imprisoned for up to 3 years and penalised 1Cr INR
Those promoting such platforms, such as social media influencers, will also face jail time of two years, and a penalty of Rs 50 lakh. The government will prohibit banks and financial institutions from facilitating financial transactions on such platforms.
IMPACT ON USERS
Till the time this becomes a law the users are not impacted. Once it becomes a law if payments have been done to aggregator platforms for gaming, could be stuck. None of the payment aggregators have promised to return money
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Centre's proposed amendment to remove ministers from office: What SC has previously said on the matter
Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in Lok Sabha a significant constitutional amendment that seeks to remove a central or state Minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively. The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review. What does the amendment propose? The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively. These provisions will have a new clause: 'A Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody.' The removal can be reversed when the Minister is released from custody. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister will be in the ambit of the proposed law. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, there is a need for a legal framework for the removal of a Minister arrested on serious criminal charges. Ministers facing such allegations 'may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance', which could 'diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people'. The constitutional amendment will require a majority of two-thirds of Members present and voting to be passed. What is the current legal framework, and how does the Bill depart from it? Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent a certain time in custody. Ministers do not have qualifications that are distinct from those of legislators (with whom the RPA deals), but they have different responsibilities. In the RPA, the yardstick for disqualification is conviction by a court. The disqualification can be stayed if the conviction is stayed by a higher court on appeal. India's constitutional scheme envisages the presumption of innocence for the accused, and puts the onus of proving the charges on the prosecution. Police file a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, after which a court frames the charges. Trial begins after that, and can end in acquittal or conviction. In the proposed Bill, the yardstick for removal is 30 consecutive days of being 'arrested and detained in custody'. Since arrest and detention are only the preliminary step in a criminal investigation, such a yardstick raises serious questions of due process. What has been the debate on when a legislator can be disqualified? Given the serious concerns over the growing criminalisation of politics, a view has gained ground that a legislator must be disqualified even before the stage of conviction. It has been argued that the long wait for conviction defeats the purpose of disqualification. Since September 2013, only 27 sitting MPs and MLAs have been disqualified after being convicted of offences. However, constitutional principles of natural justice require a person to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before consequential action is taken against them. Also, disqualification impacts not only the rights of the legislator but also the will of the people who have elected the legislator. In its 170th report in 1999, the Law Commission of India proposed that the framing of a charge for offences punishable by up to five years' imprisonment should be made an additional ground for disqualification, which should be for five years or until acquittal, whichever was earlier. This proposal was reiterated by the Election Commission of India in 2004, and by the Law Commission in its 244th report in 2014. The Law Commission's 2014 report recommended that a legislator could be disqualified when charges were framed against them by a court, since this showed prima facie judicial satisfaction that there existed sufficient material against a person to put them to trial. The report rejected suggestions that the filing of a chargesheet by police or of a court taking cognizance of an offence against a legislator were appropriate stages for disqualification. Disqualifying a person before the 'application of judicial mind' would be 'against the principles of natural justice', and 'would mean that a person is penalised without proceedings being initiated against him', the Commission said. What has the Supreme Court said on the question of disqualification of a legislator? 🔴 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court discussed these recommendations in a 2018 judgment in a public interest litigation. The PIL by Public Interest Foundation had sought disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for serious offences. The court stated that it could not legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond what Parliament had provided. It reiterated that the power to make laws on disqualification rested solely with Parliament. The court did recommend, however, that Parliament should enact a 'strong law' making it mandatory for political parties to revoke the membership of those against whom charges have been framed for 'heinous and grievous offences', and to not give them tickets to contest elections. 🔴 Earlier, in its judgment in Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court had said there is no bar against a person with criminal antecedents being appointed as Minister. However, the court suggested that as the 'repository of constitutional trust', the Prime Minister should consider not choosing individuals with criminal antecedents, especially if charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or corruption. 🔴 More recently, the SC made some observations in two cases of Ministers facing money laundering charges — one, V Senthil Balaji of Tamil Nadu, and two, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. BALAJI was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in 2023 in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and remained in custody for 14 months. He was dropped as a Minister after significant pressure from the Governor and the opposition. In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted Balaji bail because the trial was likely to take several years. Within days of being released, Balaji was reinstated as a Cabinet Minister. The ED urged the SC to cancel his bail, arguing that from his position of authority, he might influence the case against him. The SC observed that it had not taken into account his ministerial position, as he had resigned before his bail application was heard. Once he was reappointed after being released, the court said it was misled. In April 2025, the court told Balaji to choose between 'freedom or post' — he could either resign or risk the cancellation of his bail. Days later, Balaji stepped down, and the court allowed his bail to continue. KEJRIWAL was granted bail in the alleged liquor policy money laundering case, but the SC barred him from signing official documents, entering government offices, and interacting with witnesses and accessing files connected with the case. The court, however, made it clear that it had no jurisdiction to compel an elected leader to step down; whether he should resign was left to Kejriwal's discretion. In September 2024, the court granted him regular bail, noting that prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial would be unjust. It refrained from issuing directions on his continuance in the office. Kejriwal voluntarily resigned soon afterward.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Shortcut by law
Criminal law is the most direct expression of the relationship between a state and its citizens. Nowhere in the legal field is more at stake for the community or the individual. Unfortunately, 'crimes' originate in government policy and, therefore, criminal law reflects the idea of power rather than justice. The state, in its discretion, designates certain acts as crimes as per its electoral or other needs. It may decide to criminalise and decriminalise almost anything. Thus, Emperor Claudius of Rome, who wanted to marry his brother's daughter, procured an amendment to the crime of incest that permitted a marriage between a niece and her paternal uncle, leaving the law unaltered as to other marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. The criminal justice system is permeated by discretion, where the police have the power to arrest people even on mere suspicion. In 2022, 76 per cent of prisoners were under-trials. Can politicians who spend just 30 days in custody constitute a valid class protected by Article 14 to be treated differently? Can police powers not be used by central or state governments to get political leaders removed from their high constitutional offices? Can an arrest itself be converted into a punishment prior to conviction? These are legitimate questions that require public debate. Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, who, unlike Arvind Kejriwal, resigned on his arrest, had to spend some six months in custody on the allegations of a so-called land scam before the Jharkhand High Court concluded that in the 'overall conspectus of the case, there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence'. Subsequently, the SC refused to interfere with Soren's bail order. As a result of his arrest, Soren could not campaign in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal, too, lost some seven weeks during the Lok Sabha elections, and when the SC granted him bail on May 10, 2024, just 18 days were available for him to campaign. With bail made extremely difficult under laws like the UAPA and PMLA, the provision is likely to be misused. The first step in the decriminalisation of politics should be to grant substantial autonomy to the CBI and ED with directors selected through consensus. Let people trust their investigation and the arrests they make. Without doing so, the removal or deemed resignation of a minister, PM or CM may lead to the misuse of the criminal justice system. Corruption in politics is a serious problem. The Vohra Committee (1993) was appointed by the Government of India to look into this issue, but we have not been able to make much progress. Lately, our politics has become devoid of ethics, and as a result, we see the willing embrace of and alliances with corrupt political leaders after leaders of a particular party have been publicly ridiculed. In ticket distribution, the autocratic high commands of all political parties reward such corrupt leaders, and very often, the 'winnability' of candidates is the only consideration. The Supreme Court has done a remarkable job in reducing political corruption through several landmark judgments. In Lily Thomas (2013), it barred convicted political leaders from contesting elections. In Jan Chaukidar (2004), it had even prohibited those in jail from contesting, but Parliament overturned this order. The UPA government did come up with an ordinance to overturn the disqualification of convicted political leaders, but Rahul Gandhi famously and publicly opposed the move. Years later, he was disqualified under that very law. The mischief that the three Bills propose to deal with is political corruption. In March 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary informed the Rajya Sabha that 'in the last 10 years, as many as 193 cases against politicians have been registered by the ED in which only two convictions (both former ministers from the Jharkhand government) have been made'. Of the total cases, 138 or a whopping 71 per cent have been registered in the last five years. There are reasons, therefore, to be apprehensive about the ED's credibility. Even the Supreme Court had expressed its anguish over the low conviction rates. If the NDA government intends to divert attention from the ongoing debate about the integrity of electoral rolls, the bills are a smart move, as the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill is unlikely to be passed because the ruling alliance does not have a two-thirds majority. Such reforms must ideally be preceded by consensus-building. Since the Opposition is against these bills, the BJP may create a narrative that it is trying to protect corrupt leaders. The inclusion of the PM, too, may be intended to score a political point, as years were lost in the debate on the Lokpal over the same issue. But finally, the UPA government's Lokpal Act, 2013, did include the PM (Section 14(1)(a). Under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 alone, about 181 sections (out of 358) provide for five years or more imprisonment. If special laws and local laws are added, this will go up drastically. Since criminal law's promise as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to destroy, let us not use it for petty political interests. Let us make bail a rule except in heinous violent crimes so that the new provisions have wider acceptability. The writer is vice chancellor of Chanakya National Law University. Views are personal
Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Nazara shares tank 15% on real money gaming ban
In an exchange clarification, Nazara said it has no direct exposure to real money gaming (RMG) businesses, and as of first quarter financials, 'the contribution to Revenues and EBITDA by RMG business is NIL.' Nazara Technologies' shares plummeted after the Lok Sabha passed a bill banning real money gaming. The company clarified its indirect exposure through a stake in PokerBaazi, which reported losses. Analysts suggest Nazara's investment in PokerBaazi is now at risk, while Delta Corp is unlikely to be affected due to a prior divestment. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: Shares of online gaming platform Nazara Technologies tanked more than 15% through Wednesday's trading session after a bill banning real money gaming (RMG) was passed in the Lok Sabha The bill aims "to prohibit the offering, operation, facilitation, advertisement, promotion and participation in online money games," among other of Nazara Technology ended 12.8% lower at ₹1,219.4. Its benchmark, the Nifty Microcap 250 where the company was the top loser, closed 0.1% to 'The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025', the government has taken this action 'to protect individuals, especially youth and vulnerable populations, from the adverse social, economic, psychological and privacy-related impacts of such games.'"Ban on real money gaming businesses is likely to put investment of ₹1,060 cr by Nazara into PokerBaazi (for 46.07% stake) at risk, which is a loss making business," said Sunny Agrawal, head of fundamental research at SBI Securities. " Delta Corp is not likely to be impacted, as it has already divested its poker platform Adda52 in February 2025."In an exchange clarification, Nazara said it has no direct exposure to real money gaming (RMG) businesses, and as of first quarter financials, 'the contribution to Revenues and EBITDA by RMG business is NIL.' Its only indirect exposure is a 46.07% stake in PokerBaazi's parent Moonshine Technologies, which is not consolidated in Nazara's financials and reported a negative profit after tax contribution in the first quarter.
