Online gaming or fantasy sports platforms generally allow users to participate in various games. Many of these platforms offer the chance to win real money, raising several concerns about their operations, taxability, etc. Likewise, as skill-based games might be viewed as business operations under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, it is unfair to ban them even when they are played for money.
- The High Courts had to strike down the amendments that prohibit online gaming because they deem these unconstitutional.
- Further, section 67A strikes at any material which “contains sexually explicit act or conduct”, penalizing the same.
- Further, the jurisprudence reflected that there was a legal, judicial and executive policy to put games of skill in a different genus and specie from games of chance.
- Depending on the nature of the games offered by these platforms, they may be classified as either ‘games of skill’ or ‘games of chance’.
Online Gaming Bill, 2025: Ban on money games, push for e-sports
Further, in Junglee Games India Private Limited demo game for fun v. State of Tamil Naduiii, the Madras High Court has held that the term ‘betting’ in entry 34 of the second list of sch. 7 in the Constitution is limited to betting on activities based on chance only. In order to maintain the safety of players and guarantee that online gambling is carried out fairly and responsibly, regulators and policymakers must confront the considerable issues that online gambling poses. In addition, everyone in India has easy access to foreign internet gambling websites that are not subject to Indian law, despite the fact that several states have laws prohibiting it. International governing organisations like the UKGC, the Malta, and Gaming Curacao oversee these websites.
What is the Government’s Observation?
The Interactive Gambling Act of 2001 (IGA) is largely responsible for regulating online gambling laws in Australia. Only betting on sports and lottery games are permitted under this law, which makes it unlawful for Australian internet casinos to provide some forms of gambling to the country’s citizens. There is no explicit regulation that forbids Australians from utilizing foreign gambling websites. Only skill-based internet gambling games are permitted in Nagaland; other games of chance are forbidden. To regulate online games of skill, the state passed the Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Games of Skill Act, 2015, which issues licences to organisations that provide games of skill on its platforms. Having stated thus, a complete ban on gambling may not result in productive outcomes and will likely result in the emergence of new means of gambling.
What is the penalty for online gaming in India?
Offences and penalties under the Act. The PROG Act prescribes stringent punishment for violations. Offering online money gaming services may attract up to three years' imprisonment and fines of up to ₹1 crore. Advertising such platforms could lead to two years' imprisonment and fines up to ₹50 lakh.
The observations of the SC in the Lakshmanan Case were relied upon to submit that Poker being a game of skill, the offering of Poker was protected under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The refusal of the NOC could not be said to be a reasonable restriction on such right, which was in the nature of an arbitrary and illegal prohibition. The legislative competence of the State legislature was also challenged by the Petitioners. The Constitution provided that States had the exclusive legislative competence to legislate on ‘betting and gambling.’ 26 Accordingly, unless both betting and gambling were involved, the State did not have the competence to legislate on the game.
The Petitioners also argued, based on principles of natural justice that the decision of the Commissioner of Police in the Communication that poker was a game of chance was taken without hearing the petitioners. 5 (“Satyanarayana Judgment”), the SC specifically tested the game of rummy on the principle of skill versus chance and held that Rummy was not a game entirely based on chance like the ‘three-card’ game. It was held that Rummy was a game involving a preponderance of skill rather than chance. The SC based its conclusion on the reasoning that Rummy requires a certain amount of skill as the fall of the cards needs to be memorized, and the building up of Rummy requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards.
