The Tamil Nadu government recently informed the Madras High Court that online gaming addiction was “destroying families” and that a new Act prohibiting all forms of online gaming was required to protect citizens.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha was hearing the matter.
Appearing for the State government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the bench that the Court should consider the intent behind the new legislation.
“The primary argument is this is about private interest versus public interest. The Court will have to look at the intent behind this legislation. It is required to protect the people of Tamil Nadu,” the Advocate contended.
The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, was being defended by Advocate Sibal. The Act, which was signed by the Governor on April 10, this year, outlaws all forms of online gambling and ‘games of chance,’ including online Rummy and Poker.
The division bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the Act’s constitutionality filed by the All-India Gaming Federation (AIGF) and several online gaming companies.
The petitioners also sought an interim stay on the implementation of the Act, and interim protection from any coercive action.
The Bench, however, refused to issue any interim orders, stating that such a decision could only be made after notifying the State government. The State is expected to respond to the pleas by the next hearing, which is scheduled for July 3, 2023.
AIGF’s senior advocate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, further contended that the Act was completely “illegal.” He claimed that the government had “mischaracterised” the game of Rummy.
He went on to say that, while the State maintained that the Act prohibited only “games of chance,” not “games of skill,” it had erred in clubbing online Rummy, which requires as much skill as chance, in with the games that were to be prohibited.
The Court, on the other hand, inquired as to what the problem was with prohibiting online gaming.
Advocate Singhvi responded by saying that the Court was referring to social realities. However, the State cannot impose the entirety of all social ills on the head of the Rummy game.
“Do you (State) ban lottery? You earn the maximum revenue from lottery. Drinking, a far greater social evil. That you’ll welcome,” Singhvi submitted.
When Justice Chakravarthy inquired as to who shuffled the cards in online Rummy, Singhvi stated that there was an algorithm that was more regulated than a physical shuffling of cards and was immune to any skewed, non-level playing field.
Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram, who also appeared on behalf of the petitioners, informed the bench that the Central Government had already enacted laws governing online gaming. As a result, he contended that the state government cannot have a parallel law on the same subject.
