The Tamil Nadu government had issued rules in February 2025 banning online games from 12 midnight to 5 am, and making identity verification mandatory for users.
Published Jun 03, 2025 | 1:41 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 03, 2025 | 1:41 PM
It's easy to get addicted to online gaming. But difficult to get out. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Madras High Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s online gaming rules, dismissing petitions from gaming firms. The court backed the state’s authority to impose Aadhaar-based ID checks and restrict gaming from 12 midnight to 5 am, citing public health under Article 21. Petitioners called it paternalism, but the state argued that the regulations were justified under Articles 19(2) and 19(6).
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, 3 June, dismissed petitions filed by online gaming companies challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s regulations that impose time restrictions and mandate identity verification for online games.
The court observed that it is the responsibility of the government to protect public welfare and upheld the state’s right to regulate online gaming activities. “This court feels that the submission by the State is not restricted to paternalism but goes a step further to ensure the health of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said, as reported by Livelaw.
To regulate and curb online gaming, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022.
Under this law, the state government issued a set of regulatory rules on 14 February 2025, published in the government gazette. These rules included:
These rules were challenged by companies including Play Games 24×7 Private Limited, Head Digital Works, and the E-Sports Players Welfare Association.
The case was heard by a division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajashekhar, with all parties submitting detailed written arguments during the course of the hearings.
The High Court ruled in favour of the government, reaffirming its regulatory powers.
The petitioners argued that the government did not have the authority to impose such restrictions, particularly time-based limits and mandatory ID verification. However, the state government maintained that it has the power to regulate the timing of online games in the interest of public health and safety.
According to the Livelaw, the companies also argued 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. They 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 gaming firms contended that the State government cannot be a guardian of an individual’s private health.
Arguing that the state had a parental right, the Advocate-General submitted that this right had to be exercised for the larger good of the people. He thus argued that the restrictions brought in by the State were reasonable restrictions and were protected under Articles 19(2) and 19(6) of the Constitution.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
