- within Coronavirus (COVID-19), Real Estate and Construction and Criminal Law topic(s)
- in India
Introduction: Gaming Act reform or regression
The surge in the use of skill- and non-skill-based games is accelerating globally, particularly with the rise of online betting platforms claiming to be skill-based, which is blurring the differentiation between the two. To address the issue, the Indian legislature passed the ‘Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act’ (“Gaming Act, 2025”) which came into force from 1st May 2026. The act distinguishes e-sports, online games, online money games, and online social games, helping consumers, regulators and other related stakeholders delineate the difference. The foremost purpose is to completely disable virtual money games in India, which are defined as any online game, irrespective of skill or chance, in which the player registers or deposits using money or similar assets with the reciprocal expectation of monetary or similar gains in return.
Likewise, it forbids any financial institution, bank, or person from authorising, aiding, or engaging in any transaction that would efficiently run their operations. It also allows the central government to establish a regulatory authority for the investigative mechanism and to be vested with the power to overshadow the complaints and grievances of the act. For instance, the offences listed in it fall under the category of cognisable and non-bailable offences. Section 16 of the act allows any officer or class of officers authorised by the central government to enter any place, whether physical or digital, without any warrant. It raises concerns about the right to privacy of an individual and disrupts the concept of separation of powers, granting unchecked authority to the executive through excessive legislation, ruling out the essential principle of judicial oversight.
Furthermore, the Act raises questions about the overbroad provision, specifically sections 16 and 17. It triggers constitutional concerns regarding privacy, proportionality, and separation of powers, challenging the existing constitutional framework.
Analyzing Legislative Vacuum and Arbitrary Control
The legislative statutes must remain consistent with the democratic principles of non-interaction with the domain of judicial scrutiny and upholding the federal structure as defined in the 7th schedule. However, one can trace an arbitrary control over this constitutional balance in this act, aiming to regularise the gaming industry.
Section 16 of the Gaming Act, 2025 provides power to search both a digital device and a physical place of the accused with authority to arrest in the guise of a preventive step. Simultaneously, section 17 mandates an acquiescence that prohibits any legal routes challenging the central government, justifying it as a bona fide clause. Normally, such unregulated searches and arrests occur only in national security threats under laws such as the UAPA Act, 1967, and the NSA Act, 1980, where public interest supersedes privacy. Comparing the Gaming Act to these statutes, it poses no such threat to national integrity or public order. A similar executive power of unregulated arrest and seizures under the Gaming Act appears to be constitutionally disproportionate to the aim it tries to achieve. The measures to be used regarding privacy-related disproportionate law and procedures is established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India(2017), which states that, any act restricting an individual's liberty must adopt the least restrictive method, which is examining the suitability, necessity, and object to ensure that the extent of restriction does not exceed its intended objectives. It established that state intrusion in individual liberty must remain in balance with the purpose outlined, and cannot be defended on ambiguous grounds of administrative control.
The compelling test laid down in the case of Govind v. State of M.P. (1975) reasoned that surveillance power must be exercised in a stipulated way and be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary intrusion on one’s privacy. In the present case, breaching privacy on mere accusation and searching without a warrant in a non-exigent case, where the urgency of action is absent. Moreover, the state providing stringent restrictions perceiving social harm of online gaming and defending it under the doctrine of proportionality is misplaced, as the punishment imposed overrides the gravity of a crime. For example, a person participating in a sports fantasy app placing a bet does not harm the public, as, unlike serious crimes of murder, or threatening national security. Placement of a bet is possibly a financial problem or a money evasion issue, or an addiction issue which are symptoms of social or individual issues and are not crimes of violence.
Secondly, excessive delegation arises from the broad and undefined drafting, which excludes the procedure for legal actions against the government, granting unguided discretion to the executive and protecting it from accountability. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1981), it was established by the Supreme Court that limited delegation is allowed; however, the legislature cannot grant any unbridled or excessive power to the executive. It is essential to provide procedures and safeguards while delegating powers to the executive, abiding by the principle of essential legislative functions. Section 17, by its “Good Faith” clause, provides unbounded power to the executive without any procedural safeguard or judicial scrutiny. Thus, it amounts to excessive delegation, allowing arbitrary exercise of power and lacking the legislative intent of the constitutional mandate.
Under normal circumstances, a case can be validly filed on grounds of breaching privacy against section 16 of the Gaming Act, since the right to privacy under Article 21 falls within fundamental rights. Such a violation can be solved through invoking the constitutional remedy of Articles 32 and 226, through which the Supreme Court and High Court can enforce fundamental rights. But the Section 17 good faith clause directly blocks the way for enforcing these judicial procedures.
The judicial precedents consistently established that the good faith clause cannot obstruct the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to check the validity of any legislation. By this reasoning, any law that takes away the rights under Part III of the Constitution is void to the extent of contravention of the particular clause under Article 13(2). Thus, even though good-faith protection is standard in many statutes inculcating executive action, it cannot be invoked to affirm a provision that violates fundamental guarantees.
Thirdly, Article 300(1) provides:
The Government of India may sue or be sued in the name of the Union of India.
It means the government is subject to a jurist and not above the law. In the case of L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), it was stated that legislative provisions cannot exclude judicial review of government actions. Any attempt to bar legal proceedings would be contrary to the rule of law under Article 14 which enshrined the principle of equality before the law. To strengthen it, the precedent is set in the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain(1975), stating that the rule of law and judicial review are part of the basic structure, and any legislative attempts to oust the court would defeat the basic structure doctrine. Together reading these precedents, then Section 17 effectively encroaches on the justice by a legislative attempt that not only overreaches the separation of powers, contravening not only the structure of three-tier organs, but also sets a precedent for other bodies to mould laws in their vested interest.
Trans Global Regulation: Practices for Oversight.
The developed nations like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Australia have established comprehensive regulatory frameworks for directing and supervising the gaming industry with proper oversight and proportional regulation protecting individual liberty.
For instance, the United Kingdom's Gambling Act, 2005, governs the industry in both offline and online domains operating under strict compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation and the Human Rights Act of the European Union. Section 306 allows a search of physical and virtual premises only when there is a warrant issued by a court or other authority. Similarly, in the United States, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 controls the industry, but the federal government has allowed the states with investigative powers on the subject. It restricted the states from investigating, as they had to comply with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects its citizens from unreasonable searches without warrants.
The approach in Asian-Oceanic countries varies from that in the Western countries. Asian countries adopt a strict content control culture in the online gaming industry while simultaneously preserving Individual privacy. For instance, Singapore has tight control over the industry but does not infringe upon individual rights. South Korea, being an online gaming-friendly country, ensures that the right to privacy of a person is not violated. In Australia, under Part III and Division II of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, the ACMA authority can only intervene in the private space of an individual if they have a warrant is issued for it. None of these protects the state from any legal proceedings with bona fide clauses.
Way forward: Proportionality compass for calibrating the Bill
The question lies not in the degree of regulation imposed but in the extent of authority conferred by the legislature on the state, impacting fundamental rights of individuals. While preventing illegal gaming is valid, the restrictions must maintain proportionality to avoid infringing fundamental rights. The swaying away of all money-based games, primarily based on skill, derecognizes the distinction made in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India(1957). It provides the Predominance test through which distinction was made between a game of chance and skill, where only if a chance predominates the skill in any game, then it would be considered as gambling. It only prohibits acts of a gambling nature, and acts of skill are protected under the commercial purpose of Article 19(1)(g). It means that games of skill are considered legal occupations and cannot be prohibited merely because money is involved. It means penalizing all money-based games, including chess, rummy, or fantasy sports, and treating skill-dominating games as equally culpable as gambling. Thereby, ignoring the Chamarbaugwala distinction that skilled games involving money are legal while chance games constitute gambling.
Rectification can be made by adding a sunset clause in the present sections 16 and 17 for 3 to 5 years to check the proportionality of this provision, based on regular review of enforcement data outcomes and social behaviour. Additionally, the act should classify the offender based on a tier system layered with the gravity of the offence, ascending from users to promoters and finally to fraudsters, aligning culpability with punishment.
To strike down the hindering clause, such as restricting legal proceedings and warrantless searches. This can be resolved by the doctrine of severability, through keeping the meaning of a valid provision and curbing the overbreadth interpretation. Moreover, the act evades the significance of recreational value of gaming, which brings knowledge, participation, and inclusion of economic faculties together. However, branding it with gambling leads to a downgrade of the legitimate social and economic role of modern gaming.
Conclusion
While the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, was of significance for the Indian online gaming society, the act fails to align with the constitutional principles and international standards. Section 16 of the act gives authority to freely violate the fundamental right to privacy of a person, while not being questioned by the power vested in section 17. It lacks the doctrine of proportionality as the provisions in it are not the least intrusive means to supervise and regulate the industry. It truly undermines the system of separation of powers, as the act through the legislature has absolute executive power against which it also goes unchecked by the judiciary.
In contrast to global regulation, where countries do not allow search without a warrant and reject executive immunity, the act allows unchecked powers to the state. Therefore, judicial intervention is imperative to uphold the constitutional principles and maintain checks and balances upon the executive and legislature.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
