Gamers logo

India's Big Gaming Bans Lack a Theory of Harm

In India, an expansion of 'online gaming' – anything from chance games to skill games – has prompted authorities to act quickly in order to control the field. There is no such thing as 'online gaming' law in the United States. For whatever reason, states have adopted the Public Gambling Act (PGA) — a 19th-century statute that has no similarity to gambling or betting – to apply to 21st-century skill gaming activities that have no resemblance to gambling or betting (an activity of pure chance).

By Amit KrPublished 4 years ago 3 min read
India's Big Gaming Bans Lack a Theory of Harm
Photo by Miikka Luotio on Unsplash

The wide brush that is being painted to this dawn industry is perplexing, given the direct contribution to the economy that stems from massive income production, job creation, and tax payments.

In India, an expansion of 'online gaming' – anything from chance games to skill games – has prompted authorities to act quickly in order to control the field. There is no such thing as 'online gaming' law in the United States. For whatever reason, states have adopted the Public Gambling Act (PGA) — a 19th-century statute that has no similarity to gambling or betting – to apply to 21st-century skill gaming activities that have no resemblance to gambling or betting (an activity of pure chance).

Three southern states will restrict internet gaming in 2021. Why? According to its aim clause, the reasons are identical, namely "to contain the threat of gaming over the internet and mobile apps, to strengthen gaming penalty for the orderly behaviour of people, and to wean them away from the vice of gambling."

The Tamil Nadu government passed an amending Act that redefined 'gaming' to include any game involving wagering or betting in person or in cyberspace, except a lottery; expanded the scope of prohibitions to include all online formats of skill games that go beyond the Ordinance, making it a punishable offence. Similarly, the Kerala government revised the regulations that prohibited online rummy in the state. These modifications were overturned by the Madras and Kerala high courts because they were arbitrary and violated the freedom to trade and commerce.

Soon after, the Karnataka government joined in on the banning spree, amending the legislation to redefine "gaming" to cover all sorts of internet gaming and making them non-bailable offences. Surprisingly, this legislation handles street gambling more leniently by making it a bailable offence.

Aversion to all online games

The repeated amending Acts establishing a blanket prohibition on 'online gaming' have strengthened a special hostility to all online games, which are regarded as more dangerous than the offline equivalents. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of skill-based games such as rummy and horse racing, and recently declared that online fantasy sports are skill-based with no issue of betting or gambling So this case is no longer res integra (an open question).

A Supreme Court court decided against a blanket restriction on dancing females in an erudite decision, saying that it was excessive and disproportionate to the legislation's stated goal. The court concluded that less harsh measures may have been taken to safeguard women's safety.

Is the government open to a multi-dimensional view?

These restrictions are a source of contention in our society since they do not address the underlying reasons of perceived hazards like as addiction or suicide. So the basic issue is that these tales lack a theoretical foundation based on facts. The wide brush that is being painted to this dawn industry is perplexing, given the direct contribution to the economy that stems from massive income production, job creation, and tax payments. Using the 'selective audience test,' the courts have condemned restrictions applied to protect the deviant or appease the sensitivities of the overly sensitive.

The government must not become so engrossed in moral policing that it loses sight of the fact that the primary guardian of such behaviour should be the parents. It would be arrogant for anybody (much less a government or a gaming firm) to claim to be the only protector of nebulous moral standards such as 'orderly conduct.'

Without any evidence that the apprehended behaviour or crime is real and that current laws and self-regulatory design are insufficient, legislations prohibiting any activity that many people may choose to engage in in any way would be an exercise in futility because it would be unenforceable; the idea behind regulating lotteries, cigarettes, and alcohol is to impose reasonable restrictions while allowing those who choose to consume the same despite the warning.

READ MORE GAMING RELATED NEWS HERE:

Tamil Nadu Govt Files Appeal in Supreme Court against Madras HC Order Decision to Overturn Gaming Ban Law

India Becomes the Largest Market in the World for Game App Downloads – Report

Indian Players can now Take Part in PUBG Asian Games

esports

About the Creator

Amit Kr

Hi I am Amit Kr from India. I love writing on various topics. I love nature, music, pets and weekend traveling.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2026 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.