Lawyers for a group of online gaming companies argued before the Madras High Court on Thursday that Tamil Nadu's five-hour nightly ban on online real money games amounts to partial prohibition rather than regulation, and that the State cannot compel players to verify identity through Aadhaar. The case, Play Games 24x7 Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, is numbered WP 6784 of 2025 and was heard by a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar1.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the State was attempting indirectly what it could not do directly, after earlier attempts to ban online games failed. He argued that the rights of gaming companies and players under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution could only be curtailed by reasonable restriction, and that the restrictions in this case were neither reasonable nor proper and could not be saved by Article 19(2) or Article 19(6)1.
"Assuming that there's power to regulate, the ban of 5 hours is a prohibition and not regulation. Under the guise of regulation, you (State) are doing partial prohibition"
Rohatgi also argued that the field of skill and its regulation is covered by central legislation, that the Information Technology Act contains central regulations dealing directly with online real money games, and that the State therefore has no power to make laws on the subject. He said the night ban was arbitrary because no comparable restriction applies to other late-night activities such as television, films, streaming, social media or food delivery, and that if a restriction were justified on health grounds it should fall on the player rather than the company. He said gaming companies were willing to configure their systems so a player could not continue after playing continuously for a long period1.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya challenged the State's insistence on Aadhaar for know-your-customer checks, arguing companies could use any document approved by the Reserve Bank of India for verification. He cited Section 4 of the Aadhaar Act, under which an entity can be allowed to perform authentication only by an act of parliament, and said the State cannot mandate Aadhaar for what he described as a private affair between company and player1.
The bench observed orally that the State may interfere where an activity is addictive, and that the Tamil Nadu government has power only over people in the State. The court adjourned the case to Friday1.
What it means for players
The five-hour night restriction and the Aadhaar-based verification requirement remain in force while the challenge continues, so players in Tamil Nadu still face the same limits on when they can play real money games and what documents they must produce. The arguments reported so far concern whether the State had the power to impose those rules at all, not whether individual players have broken them. Nothing in the reporting indicates any change to how the rules are enforced against players, and no ruling on the merits has been reported. Players outside Tamil Nadu are not directly covered by the State's law, though the outcome may shape how other states approach similar restrictions. For background on the national framework, see What India's Online Gaming Ban Means for Players and Where Gambling Is Allowed in India, State by State.
What happens next
The court adjourned the matter to Friday, when hearings are expected to continue1. No date for a final judgment has been reported.
