Online Gambling Act: HC refuses interim order sought by AIGF

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to pass any kind of interim orders in favour of All India Gaming Federation (AIGF) in the cases challenging the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling Act, 2022.

Hearing the pleas filed by AIGF with a battery of senior counsels, including Abishek Manu Singhvi, C Aryama Sundaram and Satish Parasaran seeking an order to declare the impugned Act as unconstitutional as the same is lacking legislative competence, the first division bench comprising acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the state government to respond to pleas within six weeks and adjourned the hearing to July 3.

During the hearing, senior counsels representing the AIGF pointed out that only the Centre is empowered to regulate games of skill. The state government cannot have a parallel law on the same subject. It’s only the Centre and not the state which is empowered to pass a law on the subject,” the lawyers prayed.

Abishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the state had deliberately mischaracterised Rummy as a game of chance and enacted the law to ban the games of skill without any data or study to prove any social menace.

The Centre on April 6 brought the rules under the Information Technology Act governing online games and therefore the states cannot exercise any power and the Union government Act takes care of all concerns. “While liquor, lottery, horse race is permitted in the state, then why the state is against the games of skill?” he argued.

On his part, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram submitted that Tamil Nadu Gaming Act of 1930 was amended in 2021 to include online games and after the High Court struck it down in 2021, the state government has now come up with a new Act with identical provisions.

Assailing this, senior counsel Kapil Sibal representing Tamil Nadu contended that it is the Union which has no competence to legislate on wagering and betting. “It is the people of Tamil Nadu and not the online gaming companies, which are here to make profits that must be protected by the court. Online gaming platforms are making money and ruining families,” he submitted.

Responding to this, senior counsel Satish Parasaran representing AIGF denied the allegation that online gaming companies are trying to extort money and questioned whether a ban could be imposed citing deaths due to stock market losses. “If an interim injunction is not issued in this case, the online gaming companies may shut shops,” he said while praying for interim relief.

During the hearing, the bench questioned what was wrong in banning online games and also observed that the public welfare was paramount.