The Madras High Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s rule banning online real-money gaming between 12 AM and 5 AM. The Court said public health and addiction risks justify the restrictions.
New Delhi: Today, On June 03, the Madras High Court upheld new rules made by the Tamil Nadu government to control how long people can play online games like rummy and poker when real money is involved.
These rules are part of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025.
ALSO READ: Data Privacy Concerns in Dating Apps: Protecting Romance in the Digital Age
Several companies like Play Games 24×7 Private Limited, Junglee Games, and Esport Players Welfare Association had filed petitions against these rules, but the Court dismissed their arguments.
A Division Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar agreed with the State government that these games, where players use real money, can be addictive and harmful, especially for people who do not understand the risks.
The rules say that players should not be allowed to log into these games between 12 midnight and 5 AM, which the government calls ‘blank hours’. The Court found this restriction to be valid and necessary.
The petitioners had argued that the government was being too strict or “paternalistic” by putting time restrictions on these games, especially when no such limits exist on watching Netflix or playing free games like Candy Crush. However, the Court strongly disagreed.
The Court stated:
“The contention of the Petitioners that no blank hours was imposed by the State in watching movies on Netflix and Prime is unsustainable as there are no stakes involved …Even in online games such as candy crush, it can be played entirely for free … it predominantly operates on freemium model. But it is only in Online RMGs where there are stakes involved and the players get attracted by the prospect of rewards, which could lead to addictive behaviour and more often than ever tend to get lost in the pleasure of the game.”
The judges explained that real money games are different because people are playing not just for fun but with the hope of winning cash. This creates a risk of addiction.
The Court added:
“The dopamine rush may trigger him to play with his money again and again, thereby unaware of the financial loss he is prone to. In a Country like ours, which is still progressing, where we are yet to attain 100% literacy and the different categories of economic and social backgrounds from which people come, it would be impossible to expect every individual accessing the game to have 100% knowledge about the consequences or risks that is involved … It is played more for the thrill of winning and a certain level of addiction sets in after a point. This addiction begins to tamper with reasoning abilities, thereby deterring the player’s cognitive decision making abilities.”
The Court found nothing wrong in the rule that online gaming companies must block access to their games from midnight to early morning.
ALSO READ: Blocking Email Over Nude Childhood Photo | Gujarat HC Serves Notice to Google
The judges saw this rule as a way to protect users from getting addicted.
The petitioners also claimed that only the central government, not the state, has the power to make laws on issues related to cyberspace.
But the Court rejected this too, stating that the main issue here is public health, which is a responsibility of the state government under the Indian Constitution.
The Court said:
“It is a case of public health and the State has full competence to pass legislation to govern matters affecting public health.”
It added that:
“Just because the subject matter of these regulations also incidentally concerns cyberspace, it would not prevent the State from stepping in on a matter which concerns the health of its subjects.”
The Court also explained that the state has the power to regulate trade and commerce, and online real money games fall under that category.
“In true essence, the Online Real Money Games is a trade activity, which if left unregulated has immediate implications on health of the public.”
Another important part of the regulations is the requirement that players must verify their identity using their Aadhaar card before registering.
The petitioners objected to this on the basis of privacy, but the Court ruled in favour of the State.
The Court observed:
“Other ID proofs, though act as valid identification proof, are not backed by an infrastructure which facilitates verification by a private entity … the scope of manipulation or deceit is comparatively lesser in AADHAR verification when compared to other ID proofs.”
It also said:
“Scope of manipulation is less in AADHAR verification … Compelling public interest outweighs right to privacy…”
The Court recognised that privacy and personal freedom are important, but said they are not absolute. The government can restrict them if public interest demands it.
The Court explained:
“Other aspects including the impetus on health and welfare of the citizens also form the spine of our Constitution … right to privacy carries with it, its own limitations and cannot be claimed in absolute. When put on a scale, a compelling public interest outweighs right to privacy.”
Senior advocates including Mukul Rohatgi, Sajan Poovayya, C Mani Shankar, Aryama Sundaram, Satish Parasaran, and Abhishek Malhotra, along with other lawyers like Akhil Anand, R Bharadwajaramasubramaniam, RS Diwaagar, Vinod Kumar, Durga Bose Gandham, Y Sankeeth Vittal, Deepika Murali, Sandeep Chilana, Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan, Ajithkumar Pugazhenthi, MS Bharath, and Jacob Kurian appeared for the petitioners.
For the Tamil Nadu government, Advocate General PS Raman and Special Government Pleader T Chandrasekaran appeared, while Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak represented the Director General of Police.
Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, assisted by Advocate Arvind Srevatsa, appeared for the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority.
Representing the Union of India were Additional Solicitor General of India AR L Sundaresan and Deputy Solicitor General of India R Rajesh Vivekananthan.
Case Title:
Play Games 24×7 Private Limited and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Maintenance
