Recent developments in India saw the Union Parliament pass the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The law aims to promote online gaming while addressing social, economic and privacy concerns. However, it bans all online games involving real money such as rummy and poker. This move has raised questions about the role of the Union government in regulating gaming, traditionally a state subject.
Legislative Context and Union-State Powers
The Constitution of India assigns legislative powers between the Union and states. Defence, communication, and welfare often require Union oversight. However, gaming and sports fall under entertainments and amusements, regulated by states. The Union government’s move to regulate online gaming cites public interest but challenges constitutional boundaries. Public health and gambling laws also rest with states, complicating the Union’s claim.
Rationale Behind the Online Real-Money Game Ban
The government marks risks like gaming addiction, financial precarity and mental health issues, especially among youth. It also points to financial fraud, money laundering and cybercrime linked to online real-money games. Online platforms differ from offline games due to software control and anonymity, increasing potential for manipulation and fraud. The ban targets these risks, aiming to protect users and the economy.
Differences Between Online and Offline Gaming
Offline games like poker and rummy have physical constraints such as card decks and player visibility. Online, software replaces dealers and players can hide behind digital identities. This lack of transparency and control raises concerns about fairness and security. The government argues that online real-money games pose greater risks than their offline counterparts.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns
Constitutional law requires that government actions be rational, necessary and proportionate. Critics question if the ban meets these criteria. The law’s effectiveness in preventing addiction or financial harm is unproven. It may push online real-money gaming underground, making regulation harder. The distinction between online and offline games is unclear, raising enforcement challenges.
Alternatives to an Outright Ban
Experts suggest regulation through licensing, fiscal controls and player limits as alternatives. Strict oversight of gaming companies could reduce risks without banning games. Mental health support for gaming disorders and employment opportunities in gaming could address underlying issues. The debate centres on balancing individual freedom with public protection.
Impact on Freedom and Responsibility
The law raises questions about adult autonomy in a free society. Should the government restrict choices that carry risk? Or should individuals bear responsibility for their actions? The paternalistic approach contrasts with personal liberty and market freedom. These tensions remain unresolved in the current legislative framework.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the division of legislative powers between the Union and states in India with reference to the regulation of online gaming and public health.
- Analyse the impact of digital technologies on traditional regulatory frameworks using the example of online real-money gaming in India.
- Examine the role of government regulation in balancing individual freedom and public welfare in the context of online gaming and addiction.
- Estimate the economic and social consequences of banning versus regulating online real-money games in India and suggest policy alternatives.
