"If An Adult Wants To Ruin His Life, It's His Choice": Online Gamers' Association Argues Before Madras High Court In Plea Against Night Ban

In a challenge to the State government's regulations on online gaming, an association for the welfare of online gamers argued before the Madras High Court on Friday (March 28) that it was the personal choice of the gamers to 'ruin their life' and the State could not act as a 'step father' to tell the players how to live their life.A division bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar were hearing a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022 along with the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations 2025. The regulations prescribe mandatory KYC for initial login along with Aadhar verification. The regulation also provides that blank hours be implemented for the real money games from 12 midnight to 5 am and no logging of the games be permitted during these restricted hours."To tell me that sitting at home I cannot play this game, under what authority of law can the government say I'm playing too much, that I'm getting addicted. It's my choice. If I want to ruin my life, it's my choice. Government can't come and tell me how to lead my life. Government can protect minors and others. But here, it's my choice. If I want to ruin my life, neither by hurting others or by doing something illegal, it's my choice. I have the right to do something. It's a human choice. My right can't be interfered," Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram said making submission for the association. Legislative competency of State:The main crux of Sundaram's arguments was that the State government does not have the legislative competency to regulate online gaming. Sundaram argued that the power to regulate online gaming solely lies with the Union government. He contended that online gaming falls within Union List under Entry 31 of List 1 in the 7th schedule of the Constitution, which deals with “posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication.”Further referring to Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, he pointed that the Central Government is empowered to make Rules under the Act. He relied on IT Rules, under which regulations pertaining to online gaming have been made. He asserted that the source of power for regulating online gaming vests with the Central Government under the IT Act and that the source of power under the IT Act is derived from Entry 31 of List 1.Sundaram further contended that the State government was dealing with the issue through Entry 26 List 2 of the State List, which concerns trade and commerce. He stated that as online games have been held to be games of 'skill' rather than of 'chance', the State is regulating it under trade and commerce."Pursuant to the gaming federation case, the government is now trying to deal with the issue through Entry 26 List 2 and not Entry 34 because courts have already said that the activities do not fall under Entry 34. So, the very purpose of the regulation means that you're accepting it as a commerce. It's not extra commercium. The whole case starts with the presumption that it is a legitimate activity of commerce," Sundaram argued. He argued that online gaming does not fall under trade or commerce. When questioned by the Court on when gaming could become a trade, he clarified that while the platforms providing the gaming services are engaged in trade by collecting money, the players themselves are not involved in any trade or commerce.He thus said that online gaming falls under Entry 31 of List 1 of Union List and not under Entry 26 of List 2 of State List. Regulating on grounds of Public Health: Sundaram also argued that prohibiting online games on concerns of public health is invalid. He submitted that the issue at hand related to 'private health' and not public health. Stating that actions affecting an individual's own health come under private health, he contended that the impugned regulations interfere with an individual's private health, an area over which the State has no authority. He highlighted that the State cannot decide what is good for an individual's health and that restrictions can be placed only when public interest is involved. He pointed out that unless an individual's action is affecting third parties, the State's regulations are unwarranted. Terming the regulations as 'paternalism' on the part of the State, the counsel contended that the State government cannot be a guardian of an individual's private health.When the Court orally remarked that addiction in online gaming is a problem, the Court counsel remarked that the choice to play the game is an individual's right and even if they are getting addicted to it, the state cannot interfere. He remarked “So is the state telling me, an adult, what I should and should not do? If I want to ruin my life, can state say anything? World is changing.” Further, “State is not my step father. Government can do all this in public space, in public interest, bring about a campaign. But...

"If An Adult Wants To Ruin His Life, It's His Choice": Online Gamers' Association Argues Before Madras High Court In Plea Against Night Ban

Upasana Sajeev & Sanjana Dadmi

Tags