By Abir Roy
The passage of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 by both houses of the Parliament marks a decisive moment for India’s digital economy, with its sweeping move to potentially prohibit online real money games, even those rooted in skill. While the government has justified the measure as necessary for consumer protection and public order, it directly unsettles a sector that has thrived under judicial recognition of the “skill versus chance” distinction. Beyond policy debates, the Bill raises fundamental constitutional questions about legislative competence, the freedom to trade, proportionality of measures and legitimate expectations of the industry and investors in the digital age.
Gaming industry has survived not because of but despite the regulation. In the context of the recently passed “The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025” in the Lok Sabha, the following key constitutional questions arise:
- Legislative competence: Given that ‘Sports’ is a State subject (List II, Entry 33 of the Constitution), what is the Union Government’s legislative basis for this Bill? How does the Bill avoid encroaching upon the exclusive legislative domain of the States?
- Can the Union Govemment use parameters (to maintain public order and protect public health; to safeguard the integrity of financial systems and the security and sovereignty of the State) to encroach, legislate and overturn state laws which explicitly regulate and permit online skill based real money games?
- Federalism and existing state laws: How will this central law override existing state-level licensing regimes for online gaming, such as those in Nagaland, Sikkim, Meghalaya? Does this not undermine the federal structure of the Constitution?
- Violation of article 14: What is the intelligible differentia that justifies a complete ban on online real money gaming while excluding other forms of wagering such as betting, casinos in certain states and games with monetary stakes like horse racing,? How does this classification satisfy the rational nexus test under Article 14?
- Violation of article 19(1)(g) (Freedom of trade): Since the Supreme Court has consistently held that ‘games of skill’ are legitimate business activities, how can a blanket ban be considered a “reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business? (blanket ban without any discussion)
- Disregard for settled jurisprudence: Why does the Bill conflate ‘games of skill’ with ‘games of chance and impose a blanket ban, thereby disregarding decades of binding judicial precedent from the Supreme Court and various High Courts which clearly distinguishes the two? (The permissibility of Daily Fantasy Sports like Dream 11, MPL, Rummy, etc. (as upheld by SC) will be overturned)
- Doctrine of proportionality: Has the government considered less invasive alternatives to a…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
