- Introduction
India’s online gaming sector has witnessed exponential growth over the past decade, driven by rapid technological advancement, widespread smartphone penetration, affordable internet connectivity, and a young, digitally fluent population. Gaming has evolved from a niche recreational activity into a significant segment of India’s digital economy. With over 450 million active gamers, India today stands among the largest gaming markets globally. Industry estimates suggest that the market is likely to reach approximately USD 9.2 billion by FY 2029, with real-money gaming forming a substantial share of this growth. Fantasy sports platforms, in particular, have emerged as dominant players, engaging millions of users across diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
However, this rapid expansion has not been without controversy. Concerns relating to excessive screen time, gaming addiction, financial losses, deceptive advertising practices, and the increasing visibility of celebrity endorsements—especially during high-profile sporting events such as the Indian Premier League—have intensified public scrutiny. Additionally, allegations linking certain online gaming platforms to money laundering, illegal betting networks, and other unlawful activities have further amplified regulatory anxiety. These developments have prompted strong demands for legislative intervention to protect public interest and consumer welfare.
Against this backdrop, Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA) with remarkable speed. The Act, which came into force on 1 October 2025, introduces a nationwide prohibition on online real-money gaming while permitting e-sports and online social games under regulatory supervision. While the stated objective of PROGA is to curb harm and safeguard public health, the manner in which it restructures the legal landscape of gaming raises serious constitutional and federal concerns.
- Overview of Prevention of Gujarat Gambling Act, 1887
The Gujarat Gambling Act of 1887 or Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is a colonial-era law designed to curb and regulate gambling practices in the region. This legislation adopts a prohibition-focused stance, primarily targeting organized gambling within common gaming venues to uphold public order and moral standards. Section 2 of the Act characterizes “gaming” as wagering on games of chance for money like market price on various commodity, shares or stock, quantity of rainfall,on the pictures, digits or figures of one or more playing cards or other documents or objects bearing numbers, or on the total of such digits or figures, or on the basis of the occurrence or non-occurrence of any uncertain future event or on the result of any draw, or on the basis of the sequence or any permutation or combination of such pictures, digits, figures, numbers, events or draws etc. This characterization illustrates the Act’s emphasis on activities that rely on luck, where individuals invest money with the hope of earning a return. Consequently, the Act prohibits the operation, management, or use of common gaming houses, as well as participation in such gambling activities. Nevertheless, the Act specifically exempts games that are purely skill-based.
[1]Section 13-“Nothing in this Act shall be held to apply to any game of mere skill wherever played”. This exemption formally strengthens the established legal boundary between chance-based games and those primarily based on skill. Importantly, this provision makes no distinction between online and offline games, Meaning if a game involves skill, regardless of whether played offline or online is legally protected. Further it can be interpreted that, it does not impose any restrictions on the playing of games involving skill concerning whether the games involves financial bets or just playing for entertainment or fun. In conclusion, the Gujarat Gambling Act establishes a legal structure that safeguards skill-based pursuits while prohibiting wagering on chance-based games, and it intentionally excludes skill-oriented games from punitive measures.
- Overview of Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is a new central law that aims to oversee the rapidly growing online gaming scene in India. Unlike traditional state gambling laws, PROGA focuses specifically on online gaming activities, creating a unified approach to online and internet gaming platforms.
Section 2(f) of PROGA defines an “online game” as any game played or offered through an internet-based platform. Section 2(g) describes an “online money game” as an online game where players deposit money or its equivalent with the expectation of receiving money or a prize. These definitions are broad and do not differentiate between games based on whether they depend more on skill or chance.
Due to these definitions and the total ban imposed by Sections 5, 6, and 7, PROGA restricts all online real-money games, regardless of their nature. As a result, online versions of games like rummy and poker fall under the category of online real-money games. This is despite the legal distinction between skill-based and chance-based games set by the Supreme Court in R.M.D Chamarbaugwala V. Union of India, (1957).[2]
However, PROGA does allow and encourage other forms of online gaming, such as online social games and e-sports, under regulatory oversight and compliance requirements. By doing this, the Act establishes a preventive and centralized regulatory framework, highlighting public interest and consumer protection in the online gaming space.
- Real Conflicts begins
- Conflict in Legislative Domain: Centre vs State
One of the most significant challenges posed by the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 concerns legislative competence under the Indian Constitution. Article 246[3] governs the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States through the Seventh Schedule, which demarcates subjects across the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. The Union Government seeks to justify PROGA[4] primarily under Entry 31 of the Union List, which relates to communication systems such as telegraphs, telephones, wireless communication, broadcasting, and similar means. It also references Article 47[5] in the Directive Principles[6], which pertains to public health.
The main issue is that Entry 31 explicitly addresses the regulation of communication methods, like telecom networks or the internet, rather than overseeing the content communicated or activities such as gaming and gambling. In essence, PROGA aims to manage and largely restrict online gaming and gambling, especially those involving real money. This subject falls under Entry 34 of the State List, which relates to “betting and gambling.” Historically, it has been governed by state authorities like different states have their own gambling laws governing gambling and betting in their respective states.
Consequently, numerous individuals and state like Karnataka are raising worries about whether the Centre has overstepped its constitutional authority by passing laws on an issue that primarily falls under state jurisdiction. This has initiated legal disputes, with cases now merged together before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is likely to hear disputes in the month of January,2026.
- Gujarat State’s Protection of Skill based games vs Centre blanket ban on Skill based Money Games
The constitutional conflict becomes particularly pronounced when the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is examined alongside the Gujarat Gambling Act, 1887. The Gujarat legislation, rooted in the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, adopts a clear and consistent approach by excluding games of mere skill from the definition of gambling. Section 13 explicitly states that nothing in the Act shall apply to games of pure skill, irrespective of the place where such games are played. This exemption is both comprehensive and technology-neutral, making no distinction between online and offline formats or between games played for monetary stakes and those played for recreation.
This legislative position is firmly supported by judicial precedent. Indian courts have consistently recognised that games such as rummy and poker[7] involve a predominance of skill and therefore fall outside the scope of gambling prohibitions. The Gujarat Act reflects this settled legal position by extending protection to skill-based games without imposing artificial limitations based on the mode of participation.
In stark contrast, PROGA[8] adopts a blanket prohibition on online real-money gaming without examining whether skill or chance predominates in a particular game. As a result, games that are legally permissible when played offline in Gujarat become illegal solely because they are played through an online platform. This creates a legally inconsistent and irrational distinction. A player engaging in a skill-based game for money in a physical setting commits no offence under State law, yet faces criminal liability for participating in the same activity online.
Such inconsistency undermines legal certainty, disrupts settled expectations, and weakens the coherence of gambling regulation. It also raises serious concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution[9], as similarly situated activities are subjected to unequal treatment without a rational nexus to the object of the legislation.
- Necessary Amendments in Gujarat Gambling Act,1887
1. Strengthening Section 13: Explicit Protection for Online Skill-Based Games
Section 13 of the Gujarat Act exempts games of mere skill “wherever played,” a phrase that is inherently technology-neutral. However, the absence of express statutory recognition of online gaming has led to inconsistent enforcement. To remove ambiguity, Section 13 should be clarified to explicitly protect online skill-based games, even where they are played for monetary consideration, provided skill remains the dominant element. Such clarification would align with State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana (1968)[10], where the Supreme Court held that the presence of stakes does not alter the skill-based character of a game. It would also reflect the approach of the Meghalaya Regulation of Gaming Act, 2021, which regulates online skill-based games through licensing rather than prohibition.2. Statutory Classification of Games and Codification of the Skill Test
The Gujarat Gambling Act presently lacks a structured statutory classification of games, leaving enforcement to subjective discretion. Introducing legislative categories like games of skill, games of chance, and mixed games,while expressly adopting the preponderance of skill test[11] would codify decades of judicial reasoning.
- Licensing-Based Regulation for Online Skill-Based Gaming
The Gujarat Gambling Act relies primarily on criminal sanctions, a model ill-suited for regulating modern online gaming ecosystems. Introducing a licensing framework for online skill-based gaming would allow regulatory oversight through eligibility norms, technical safeguards, and audits without suppressing lawful activity. States such as Sikkim[12] and Meghalaya[13] have successfully adopted licensing-based regimes, ensuring consumer protection while avoiding constitutional infirmities. In contrast, blanket prohibitions imposed in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have repeatedly failed judicial scrutiny for being disproportionate.
- Need For Establishment of State’s Own Online Gaming Reguatory Like other states Nagaland, Meghalaya.
Gujarat Gaming Regulatory Authority empowered to classify games, issue licences, monitor compliance, and resolve disputes to reduce regulatory Uncertainty and Curbing arbitrary state action.[14].
- Need for Regulation not Prohibition
Legitimate concerns relating to addiction, financial harm, and public health cannot be ignored. However, prohibition is neither the only nor the most effective response judicial trends consistently suggest that regulation, rather than prohibition, is the constitutionally preferred approach when less restrictive alternatives are available to address social harms.
- Rationalizing Legal Provisions
Penal provisions under the Gujarat Gambling Act are presently available for offline gambling. Criminal liability should be confined to unlicensed operators, fraudulent practices, and games predominantly based on chance. Players participating in licensed skill-based games should be expressly excluded from criminal prosecution to promote skill based games among people.
The emphasis on proportionality, as articulated by the Madras High Court in Junglee Games v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021)[15], underscores the need to prevent over-criminalisation in gaming regulation.
Conclusion
The conflict between the Gujarat Gambling Act, 1887 and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 highlights a deeper constitutional tension between State legislative autonomy and centralised regulatory intervention. While the risks associated with online gaming cannot be dismissed, a sweeping prohibition that ignores decades of judicially settled distinctions between games of skill and games of chance risks arbitrariness and federal imbalance.
A calibrated regulatory approach—achieved through targeted amendments to State gambling laws—offers a more constitutionally sound and sustainable alternative. By adopting licensing-based regulation, statutory classification of games, and clear consumer safeguards, States can address legitimate social concerns without undermining fundamental principles of federalism and equality. In the digital age, thoughtful regulation, rather than blanket prohibition, remains the most effective and legally coherent response to the challenges posed by online gaming.
[1]Section-13 of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act,1887
[2] R.M.D Chamarbaugwala V. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
[3] Constitution of India
[4]PROGA, 2025
[5] Constitution of India
[7]Some states have banned Poker like gujarat in Dominance Games Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2018) 1 GLR 801. while some states have allowed poker and considered poker as a skill based games.
[8] PROGA 2025
[9] Constitution of India
[10] State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana & Ors.
AIR 1968 SC 825; (1968) 2 SCR 387
[11] Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ANR [1996] INSC 61 (12 January 1996)
[12]The Sikkim Online Gaming (Regulation) Act, 2008 Act 23 of 2008
[13]The Meghalaya Regulation of Gaming Act, 2021 Act No. 9 of 2021
[14] The Constituition of India 1950, Article 14
[15]The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Junglee Games India Private Limited
Author Bio– Baqer and Mann, 2nd Year B.B.A LL.B , LJ School of Law
