On Monday, a bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekhar heard the rejoinder arguments presented by Senior Counsel C. Aryama Sundaram, who appeared on behalf of the eSports Players Welfare Association (EPWA), a body advocating for the welfare of esports players.
To allow other senior counsels time to present their responses, the court adjourned the matter to April 16, 2025. In the meantime, all parties have been permitted to file written submissions.
Last week, the court declined to intervene in the show-cause notices issued by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA) to several online gaming platforms. These notices were in connection with alleged violations of state-imposed restrictions on real-money online games.
When the platforms’ petitions challenging the state’s restrictions came up for hearing on Friday, they argued that issuing such notices while the matter is still under judicial consideration was unfair. In response, the bench noted that the court had not granted any interim stay on the enforcement of the law, and therefore, the gaming authority was well within its rights to proceed.
During Monday’s session, Senior Counsel Sundaram countered arguments made by the Advocate General. He contended that the issue of regulatory jurisdiction does not fall within the state’s domain, as the authority to govern online gaming lies solely with the central government under Entry 31 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This provision grants the central government exclusive power to legislate on matters related to posts, telegraphs, wireless, and other forms of communication.
Sundaram emphasized that the central government’s authority remains intact regardless of whether it has operationalized the amended Information Technology (IT) Rules by setting up Self-Regulatory Bodies (SRBs). The absence of implementation does not diminish the Centre’s legislative power, he argued.
He further asserted that the subject matter of online gaming does not fall under the state’s legislative purview, which includes areas like public health, regulation of intra-state trade, or public order. Addressing the claim that poker is not a game of skill, Sundaram pointed out that the Madras High Court has already ruled in two separate judgments that poker qualifies as a skill-based game.
Earlier in the proceedings, prominent Senior Counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Poovayya represented major online real-money gaming platforms such as A23, Junglee Rummy, and RummyCircle. They challenged the constitutionality of the state law on three major grounds:
Curfew on Online Gaming – The law bans online gaming from midnight to 5 AM, a restriction the petitioners labeled arbitrary and unjustified. They argued that it infringes on individual rights and personal freedom without a rational basis.
Aadhaar-Based User Authentication – The law mandates Aadhaar verification for all users, a requirement gaming companies argue is “impossible to comply with.” They cited that current regulations under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 prohibit such use due to privacy and legal concerns.
Jurisdictional Overreach – The petitioners maintained that skill-based online gaming is governed by the central government’s IT Rules, 2021. As such, they argue, the Tamil Nadu legislature has no authority to impose regulations in this space.