Challenge to ban on online gaming: State says Act is to protect people; how can we interfere? Madras High Court

The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday told the Madras High Court that addiction to online gaming was "destroying families" and that its new Act banning all forms of online gaming was necessary to protect the citizens of the State [All India Gaming Federation v State]..Appearing for the State government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told a Bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy that the Court must look at 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," Sibal argued..Sibal was defending the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022. The Act that received the Governor's assent on April 10 this year, prohibits all forms of online gambling and online 'games of chance' including online Rummy and Poker..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by the All India Gaming Federation and several online gaming companies challenging the validity of the Act. The petitioners had also sought an interim stay on the implementation of the Act, and interim protection from any coercive action. The Bench, however, refused to pass any interim orders, saying that any such decision could be taken only after issuing notice to the State government. The State is expected to respond to the pleas by July 3, the next date of hearing..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the online gaming industry, argued that the Act was totally "illegal." He said the State had "mischaracterised" the game of Rummy.He added that while the State was maintaining that the Act banned only 'games of chance' and not 'games of skill,' it had erred in clubbing online Rummy, which involves as much skill as chance, with games that were to be banned. He argued,"This Act is mainly for gambling and betting that involve chance issues and not skill. This whole red herring of skill is just that, a red herring. Most importantly, per se in the matter of law, in the 70 years of jurisprudence, your Lordships have held year after year that Rummy is a game of skill. So how can this impugned Act ban Rummy?" The Court, however, asked what the problem was in banning online gaming. "Everywhere people are crying. Wives say the men are wasting money, getting addicted. The State says the Act is to protect its people. So how can we interfere?"Singhvi responded that the Court was speaking of social realities. But the State cannot impose the entirety of all social evils on the head of the game of Rummy, he said. "Do you (State) ban lottery? You earn the maximum revenue from lottery. Drinking, a far greater social evil. That you'll welcome," he submitted..When Justice Chakravarthy asked who shuffled the cards in online Rummy, Singhvi said there was an algorithm that was better regulated than a physical shuffling of cards, and was immune to any skewed, non-level playing field. "It is not like those James Bond movies that your Lordships must have watched where cards come in from anywhere," Singhvi said..Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram, who also appeared for the petitioners, told the Court that the Central government had already framed laws governing online gaming. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu government cannot have a parallel law on the same subject, he argued..Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran and Advocates Deepika Murali, Suhrith Parthasarathy and Suhaan Mukherjee also appeared for the petitioners.Along with Sibal, Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram and Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the State government.