The publication of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (the “Gaming Act”) in India’s Official Gazette represents a pivotal moment in the country’s evolving digital economy. While fast and affordable internet connectivity has been a key factor behind the growth of the gaming industry worldwide, online gaming in India has grown from a niche leisure activity to a multi-billion-dollar industry encompassing skill-based platforms, fantasy and e-sports, card-based games, as well as educational and casual social gaming. However, this expansion has been accompanied by public policy concerns regarding addiction, financial loss, misleading advertisements, and risks of money laundering through real-money games (“RMGs”).
Accordingly, at a time when the boundaries between online money gaming, casual gaming, and competitive e-sports have become increasingly blurred due to technological innovation, evolving consumer demand, and the rapid growth of new monetisation models, the Gaming Act was passed by Indian Parliament during its monsoon session and received presidential assent in August 2025 – although it is yet to be notified and enforced.
Online games often involve an element of wagering or betting for monetary stakes, and the legality of such games in India had been hitherto determined by courts. With the aim of curbing the risks of gambling, addiction, and consumer harm associated with unregulated RMGs, and for the purpose of creating a clear regulatory pathway for the growth of a sustainable and innovation-driven gaming ecosystem in India, the Gaming Act seeks to reconcile two seemingly competing objectives: (i) on the one hand, to prohibit ‘online money games’ (i.e., RMGs) accessible through any computer resource, mobile device, or the internet; and (ii) on the other hand, to promote, encourage, and regulate legitimate online gaming formats such as e-sports, educational games, and online social games.
This dual objective is significant because it departs from India’s existing legal framework that primarily relies upon judicial tests – such as the “predominance of skill versus chance” doctrine, as applied under the country’s gambling laws. Instead, the Indian Government has sought to create a statutory classification scheme of permissible and impermissible game formats, thereby anchoring regulatory oversight in legislative definitions rather than judicial interpretation. Importantly, the Gaming Act imposes a complete prohibition on online RMGs, irrespective of whether such games are based on skill, chance, or both.
Nonetheless, as is often the case with laws designed to keep pace with fast-evolving technologies, the Gaming Act has left open certain interpretive grey zones. Industry stakeholders and courts may struggle to draw clear lines between prohibited RMGs and legitimate e-sports or social games, particularly when hybrid monetization models are involved. These uncertainties may have significant implications for developers, investors, and regulatory authorities.
Recent Developments
In September 2025, the Supreme Court of India transferred to itself three petitions pending before separate state High Courts (i.e., Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh) in response to a request made by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for the purpose of ensuring judicial uniformity and avoiding legal uncertainty, given the possibility of conflicting court decisions. Such petitions, filed by Head Digital Works Private Limited (A23 Rummy), Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Private Limited, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Private Limited (Boom11 fantasy platform) in the Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, respectively, had challenged the Gaming Act, arguing, among other things, that:
(a) certain sections of the Gaming Act violated constitutional provisions, including Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/ profession) of the Constitution of India;
(b) the regulation of games of skill falls within State, and not Central, jurisdiction;
(c) since Indian courts have long held that skill-based games are legal, the Gaming Act was contrary to such precedents and created jurisprudential inconsistency and business disruption, and relatedly, given such existing judicial recognition, the blanket ban on online money games was unreasonable;
(d) certain key definitions in the Gaming Act, including those of “online money game” and “e-sports”, as well as its main prohibitory provisions, were vague and manifestly arbitrary: e.g., while carrom is a recognised game of skill, the operation of the Gaming Act was likely to criminalize its commercial offering;
(e) since certain games, such as fantasy games, were “permissible online games” pursuant to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Intermediary Rules”), the Gaming Act had the potential to contradict such classification and create legal inconsistency.
Read the full article at
