&w=3840&q=100)
Govt likely to tighten rules for money-based games in Online Gaming Bill
Himanshu Thakur New Delhi
The government may introduce severe curbs on online money-based games in the forthcoming Online Gaming Bill, 2025, a CNBC-TV18 news report said on Tuesday.
The draft Bill was reported to impose restrictions on online money games or online money gaming service offerings, a move that could impact multiple firms in the country.
It is also expected to classify an 'online money game' as any game — irrespective of skill- or chance-based — that involves players paying a fee or depositing money to participate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
IIM Guwahati clears Rajya Sabha; Pradhan brings up CSDS row
Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed a Bill to set up the country's 22nd Indian Institute of Management in Guwahati. The Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed by voice vote. The Opposition, which continued to seek a debate on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, did not take part in the hour-long discussion, walking out soon after the Bill was introduced. Lok Sabha cleared the Bill, which provides for an investment of `555 crore to set up the institution, on Tuesday. Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, when given the floor, said the Opposition has been trying to raise the issue of SIR daily. The Chair, Bhubaneshwar Kalita, did not allow him to raise the issue. As the Opposition walked out amid sloganeering, Kalita said: 'You are walking out, that is also a part of democracy. But while going out also, you should maintain decorum.' Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who introduced the Bill, said: 'They are not letting the Parliament, which runs on the taxes of the poor people, (function).' He also said the Congress was referencing information posted by an expert from Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) with malafide intentions. He also said the institution had received funding from the ICSSR and that taking money from India and challenging its constitutional system is not a good thing. Several members who participated in the discussion said the institute would ensure access to good global quality education in the northeast. AIADMK member M Thambidurai raised the issue of student suicides at IIMs. He also raised the issues of appointments of V-Cs in Tamil Nadu, which is stuck in a legal quagmire. The TN government is currently in court over a set of laws that shift the power to appoint V-C to the state government from the Governor. In his response, Pradhan said his ministry will look into the suggestions from members.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Amit Shah tables 3 bills in Lok Sabha, sent to JPC amid chaos
Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in the Lok Sabha three contentious bills that bar any minister, chief minister or prime minister from holding the position after getting arrested, amid a storm of Opposition protests and sloganeering that even saw the draft legislation torn up and pieces of paper flung at the minister. Home Minister Amit Shah speaks in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament on Wednesday(Sansad TV) Tempers flared, copies of the bills were torn and members of the ruling and opposition coalitions came face-to-face and jostled in the Lower House, which eventually sent the three bills to a joint parliamentary committee, comprising 21 members of the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. Some Opposition members charged towards the Well of the House and even headed towards Shah who was introducing the bill around 2pm, forcing a brief adjournment and admonishment from speaker Om Birla. When the House was reconvened at 3pm, 15 marshals were brought inside the House and the home minister introduced the bills from the fourth row, instead of the first, guarded by marshals. 'On one hand, PM Narendra Modi has introduced a constitutional amendment to bring himself into the ambit of law. On the other hand, under the leadership of Congress, the entire opposition has opposed it in order to remain above the law, run governments from jail, and cling to power,' Shah posted on X. The three bills – the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill – propose that a sitting minister, chief minister or even the Prime Minister can lose their position within a month if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days over an offence that carries a jail term of five years or more. Shah rose to introduce the three bills – which will require a two-thirds majority in the House to become a law – shortly after 2pm. Almost immediately, at least five opposition MPs opposed it, saying the members were not given time to read the bill, and alleged that the bill will empower agencies to settle political rivalry, target opposition parties and undermine constitutional safeguards. Congress leader KC Venugopal, who also tore a copy of the bill, asked the home minister if he had resigned after being arrested when he was the state home minister in Gujarat. 'The people in BJP are saying that this bill will bring back morality in politics. I want to ask the home minister. He had been arrested. Whether he took the morality of resigning…This bill is to threaten people like Nitish Kumar (Bihar chief minister) and N Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh CM).' An irate Shah responded immediately. 'When the allegations were levelled and before the arrest, I resigned on moral grounds. Until the courts passed an order, I did not accept any constitutional post. I want to assure that this bill will ensure morality. We should not have a situation where there are grave allegations and yet the person continues to hold the post,' he said. Trinamool Congress's Trinamool's Kalyan Banerjee, who was standing in front of Shah, turned around and tried to use the minister's microphone to oppose the bill. Some other TMC members hurled papers in front of the minister. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, who was seated on the second row, rushed to stand between the protestors and Shah. Minister of state Ravneet Singh Bittu also came running down. The bill was finally introduced at 3.02pm after a voice vote and sent to a JPC by 3.05pm after another voice vote. Opposition MPs, including All India Majlis-e- Ittehadul Muslimeen's Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress's Manish Tewari and Venugopal, and Revolutionary Socialist Party's NK Premachandran, spoke against the introduction, terming the proposed law against the Constitution and federalism. Demanding that Shah withdraw the bills, Tewari said they were 'squarely destructive' of the basic structure of the Constitution and turned the fundamental principle of the rule of law that a person is innocent till proven guilty on its head. The bills gave due procedure a go-by and made an investigating officer the 'boss of the Prime Minister of India', he said. Later in the evening, the home minister defended the bills. 'On account of the Modi government's commitment to restoring moral standards in politics and in view of the public resentment towards the menace, today with the Lok Sabha speaker's permission, I tabled constitutional amendment bills that will prevent people from holding important constitutional positions like Prime Minister, chief minister, or Union or state minister while in jail,' Shah later posted on X. He also attacked the Congress. 'I want to remind Congress that I had resigned even before being arrested. I did not hold any constitutional position, even after being released on bail, until the court fully acquitted me…The BJP and the NDA have always stood for moral values. On the other hand, the Congress party continues to carry forward the unethical tradition started by Smt. Indira Gandhi,' he said. The three bills propose an entirely new legal framework that will be applicable to ministers and CMs in states and Union territories such as Jammu & Kashmir, and Union ministers and the PM at the Centre. To be sure, the bills suggest that a dismissed minister, CM or PM can be appointed again after their release from custody. There is currently no provision to remove a sitting minister if they are accused of a crime. Only a Member of Parliament or legislative assembly can lose their seat (and if they're a minister, effectively their ministership) if they are convicted for a crime that carries a punishment of two years imprisonment or more. Owaisi said the bill violated the principle of separation of powers, undermined the elected government and gave executive agencies a free run to become a judge, jury and executioner based on flimsy allegations. 'Only when an offence is proved without reasonable doubt then only you can leave the post and membership. But here a mere accusation, allegation has the punishment of losing a minister post…This amendment will leave the CM and ministers at the mercy of the agencies,' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
New bills will ensure morality, probity: BJP
New Delhi : The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday said the three bills moved by union home minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha that seek the removal of the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offences if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days, are intended at ensuring 'morality and probity' in public life. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday.(Sansad TV/ANI) The party also underlined how its own leaders, from LK Advani to Amit Shah, had stepped down from their positions when they faced allegations of 'corruption and other charges.' 'When the bill was first drafted the PM's office was kept out of the ambit, but PM Modi insisted that the bill should include the head of the union government as well. Where is the question of any political witch hunt?The provisions of the bills are in line with the anti corruption agenda and will apply to all equally,' said a senior party leader, speaking on condition of anonymity. A second party functionary said that the Congress and other opposition parties should 'clearly state the reasons for their opposition to the bill…and whether they support a government being run from behind the bars,' While the opposition joined forces to criticise the bills, dubbing them as undemocratic and against the tenets of federalism -- they see this as a way for the BJP to topple state governments -- the BJP asserted that the move was line with the government's anti corruption agenda and not intended as a tool for vendetta. Amid disruption and protest by the opposition, Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill seeks to remove the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days. He also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025; since there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for such a measure, Section 54 of the Act, needs to be amended to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a minister in these cases. And he introduced the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which extends the same law to UTs. Senior BJP leaders explained that the bills which have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee that will present its report on the first day of the next session will ensure there is no recurrence of events where a minister or a CM, refused to step down even as charges were framed against them. A third senior party leader, cited the example of former Delhi CM and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal who was in prison for nearly six months in 2024 in the corruption case lodged by the CBI in connection with the excise policy 'scam', as an example of impropriety. 'There was this case of a sitting CM who was in jail and on August 15, another leader had to step in to unfurl the National Flag… it was against public morality,' added the third leader. On the timing of the Bill, the second leader said the government had thought of bringing the bill soon after Kejriwal's arrest, but decided against it, because it did not want the opposition to paint it as 'a political move to remove Kejriwal'. 'It was about the system and not the individual…' the leader said. He said there have been numerous instances where leaders who were accused of graft and other irregularities had stepped down pending a probe. 'When the Hawala Diaries were made public and LK Advani's name was mentioned, he stepped down as the party president and resigned from his Lok Sabha membership… Shah himself stepped down as minister in Gujarat and more recently Jharkhand CM, Hemant Soren stepped down as CM when he was arrested, and much earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav had to step down as Bihar CM when he was accused of the fodder scam,' the leader said. In 2024, Soren stepped down as CM following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged money laundering case. He went on to say that Shah did not accept any constitutional position till he was acquitted by the court in 2015. 'He could have become union minister or a Rajya Sabha member in 2014 itself, but he chose not to. He became the minister in 2017…' Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Shah referred to his own decision to step down as the home minister of Gujarat till he was cleared of all charges by the courts 'False allegations were levelled against me, and I resigned on moral grounds, and I did not take any constitutional posts until I was cleared of all charges by the courts,' Shah said. The BJP also stepped up its attack on the Congress, pointing out that the party, when it was in power, had attempted to amend the Office of Profit bill to seek exemption for the post of NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi and several other posts from its ambit. 'When Sonia Gandhi had to resign for holding an office of profit the party tried to amend the provisions. Instead of leading by example and walking the talk on probity and public morality they chose to alter the rules,' the first leader quoted above said. In 2006, Gandhi had to resign as Lok Sabha MP after being accused of holding an office of profit by being a Member of Parliament as well as the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, which was a post with the rank of a Cabinet minister. Responding to a question whether the government was confident of getting the numbers to pass the bill, the second leader said, 'We don't have the numbers, but we decided to send it to the JPC so that there can be discussion on the bill…Let the opposition stall its passage and explain to the people why they did so.' The BJP also dismissed the opposition's claims that the provisions were violative of the constitution. Responding to AIMIM chief Asasduddin Owaisi's charge that the bills violate the principle of separation of powers and undermine the right of the people to elect a government, the second leader said the bills state that the offences should carry a jail term of five years or more, which implies it will be implemented only in serious cases. 'Thirty days is sufficient time for the courts to consider and pass judgment…the bill also says that the dismissed minister or CM can be appointed again after their release. Where does it undermine the democratic process?'
