Author : Paras Tiwari | EQmint | EQmint Originals
In a landmark judgment delivered on June 3, 2025, the Madras High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu’s Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, along with its Real Money Games Regulations, 2025 — a suite of legal measures aimed at regulating online real-money games (RMGs) such as rummy, poker, and other wagering activities conducted over digital platforms.
The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, marks a decisive moment in India’s ongoing debate over the regulation of online gaming. By validating the state’s regulatory approach, the Court has clarified the constitutional boundaries within which states may intervene in digital markets, particularly where public health concerns are involved.
Background: From Blanket Prohibition to Structured Regulation
Tamil Nadu’s legislative engagement with online gaming has evolved through multiple legal phases. In 2021, the state amended the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 through the Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, imposing a sweeping ban on online games involving monetary stakes. This amendment was struck down by the Madras High Court in Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu for being unconstitutional and disproportionate.
Learning from that setback, the State recalibrated its approach. Rather than prohibiting all online gaming for stakes, it enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, which sought to introduce a regulatory framework distinguishing between games of skill and games of chance. The Act provided for player safeguards such as age restrictions, advertising controls, grievance redressal mechanisms, and responsible gaming norms.
To operationalise the statute, the State notified the Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, empowering a statutory authority to oversee compliance and enforcement.
Earlier Judicial Scrutiny and Pending Appeals
The 2022 Act was first examined in All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023), where the High Court largely upheld the statute but struck down portions of the Schedule that categorised games like rummy and poker as games of chance. The State has challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court of India, where the matter remains pending.
Despite this, fresh petitions were filed challenging the State’s power to frame regulations under the Act, culminating in the present judgment in Play Games 24×7 Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025).
Key Constitutional Challenges Raised
The petitioners argued that:
• The State lacked legislative competence to regulate online real-money games.
• The regulations violated the fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g).
• Certain safeguards were arbitrary and excessive.
• The regulatory framework conflicted with the IT Rules, 2021.
Court’s Reasoning and Legal Findings were as follows:
State Competence and Public Health-
The Court held that regulation of online real-money games falls within the State’s legislative powers under Entry 6 of the State List relating to public health.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
Res judicata is a legal doctrine that means “a matter already judged.” It prevents the same issue from being tried again once it has been decided by a competent court, ensuring consistency and fairness in legal proceedings. This principle applies to various legal contexts, including civil suits and criminal cases, to avoid re-litigation of the same matter.A significant portion of the challenge was dismissed on procedural grounds. The Court observed that many of the issues raised had already been adjudicated in the 2023 AIGF ruling. Re-litigating settled questions, the Bench held, was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, ensuring finality in constitutional adjudication.
No Repugnancy with Central Law
The Court rejected claims of conflict with central IT laws.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision reinforces that digital innovation does not exist in a regulatory vacuum. Regulation, rather than prohibition, reflects a mature legal response.
Additionally, this judgment may also influence how the Supreme Court approaches the broader question of real-money gaming in India. With multiple challenges pending, the emphasis on regulation over prohibition could prompt reconsideration of complete bans, particularly for games of skill.
For more such information: EQmint
Resource Link: Jurius Hour
