India’s Top Court Reviews State Bans on Rummy, Poker, Fantasy Sports
- Sagar Mankar
- 3 days ago
- 4 min read
TL;DR:
The Supreme Court of India is hearing key appeals challenging Tamil Nadu and Karnataka’s bans on online skill-based games. Lawyers are arguing in the Supreme Court that:
Online games like rummy, poker, and fantasy sports are games of skill, not gambling — so they should be legal.
Games of skill are protected by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(g), which allows people to run businesses.
State governments cannot regulate online platforms because the internet is controlled by the central government.
The laws unfairly ban online versions of games that are legal when played offline — this is unequal and violates Article 14.
Previous court rulings already said these games are legal, so state laws trying to ban them go against the Supreme Court's past decisions.
Just because money or entry fees are involved doesn’t make it gambling, as skill is still the main factor.
Fantasy sports involve strategy and statistics, not chance, so they are clearly skill-based.
Fantasy platforms don’t offer bets — they charge a fixed fee to run contests.
States are overstepping their authority, trying to control something (online gaming) that legally belongs to the Centre.
Such bans hurt businesses and digital innovation, and there’s no strong evidence that these games cause harm.
New Delhi, July 29: The Supreme Court of India is currently reviewing a series of appeals that challenge state-level bans on online games such as rummy, poker, and fantasy sports.
At the heart of the case are three state laws: the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, and the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021. These legislations have been under scrutiny for categorizing certain online games like rummy and poker as "games of chance" or as gambling in simple terms, despite courts previously ruling them as “games of skill,” which are protected under the Constitution. (Source: GamesHub)
Senior legal advocates including C.A. Sundaram, Arvind Datar, and Mukul Rohatgi are representing gaming platforms and industry associations. They argue that the laws are unconstitutional, arbitrary, and directly contradict Supreme Court rulings. According to Sundaram, games of skill cannot be lumped under “gambling” and are protected by Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business.
He further noted that online games fall under the purview of the Centre Govt via Entry 31 of the Union List — dealing with communication and internet-based services — rather than individual states, which derive their authority under Entry 34 (betting and gambling) of the State List. This, he claimed, makes the state bans an overreach.
Adding to this, Arvind Datar referenced earlier rulings such as R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which made a clear distinction between games of skill and chance. Datar pointed out the inconsistencies in the law, stating that physical rummy and poker are still allowed, while their online versions are being criminalized without a rational basis — violating Article 14’s principle of equality.
Meanwhile, Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS), focused on the unique nature of fantasy sports. He argued that they are fundamentally skill-based, as participants rely on statistical data and player analysis to make decisions. Unlike traditional gambling, the outcome of fantasy sports contests doesn’t depend on the final score of a real match but on individual player performance metrics.
Rohatgi also highlighted that these platforms do not engage in betting but instead charge fixed entry fees, making them distinct from games of chance. He cited legal precedents from the U.S., including the Humphrey v. Viacom ruling and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, to support his claim that fantasy sports should not be classified as gambling.
A major point of contention is the state's attempt to extend its regulatory reach over digital platforms, despite the Centre having enacted comprehensive rules under the IT Act, 2000 and Intermediary Guidelines of 2021. Critics argue that allowing states to independently legislate on online gaming could lead to a fragmented and inconsistent regulatory framework across the country.
As per reports, legal experts have also warned against the overuse of “parens patriae” powers — where states justify bans by claiming to act in the public’s best interest. Without solid empirical backing, such paternalistic measures may harm legitimate businesses and infringe on economic freedoms.
With over 400 million online gamers in India and a rapidly growing real-money gaming sector, the Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to be a landmark. A decision in favor of the industry would reaffirm previous judicial interpretations and offer much-needed legal clarity. However, if the court sides with the states, it could open the door for more regional restrictions and legal uncertainty in one of the world's largest digital gaming markets.
The final judgment, expected in the coming months, could ultimately determine whether India fosters a unified and innovation-friendly digital gaming environment or moves toward a fragmented model governed by state-level policies.
Comments