On 21 August 2023, the Madras High Court resumed the hearing in the matter of the challenge against the online gaming ban. The senior counsel of AIGF, Aryama Sundaram, made rejoinder submissions. He argued that the concerns of the state government regarding regulating the time and place of operation of online games are unfounded as the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Act itself regulates the time, limit, age and so on of online games by the TN Online Gaming Authority.

He further argued that the Government cannot now claim that the scope of the provisions of ‘betting and gambling’ laid down in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution include betting on ‘games of skill’ after a Division Bench of the Madras HC in the Junglee Games case ruled that the terms ‘betting’ and ‘gambling’ only referred to ‘betting on games of chance’.

He also claimed that none of AIGF’s members uses bots and that if a platform is found to use bots, criminal charges can be filed under current laws because it’s the same as cheating and breach of trust.

Mr Sajan Poovayya, a senior advocate appearing for Online Rummy companies, said that the central government has already changed the IT rules to give a legal framework for online real money games and there are restrictions in the rules to address the concerns raised by the government. He also showed screenshots of how the online rummy platforms work.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of Gameskraft, the counsel for the party requested the court to list the matter on August 24 so that he can file his rejoinder. The court accordingly posted the matter for August 24, which is likely to be the last date of the hearing. The case may be closed on August 24 and the judgment can be reserved.

At the first hearing, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the Tamil Nadu government, claimed that organisers can’t make money from games like rummy even if they’re skill-based. He also said that online rummy is different from playing physically.

Similar cases have also been brought before the Supreme Court based on earlier judgments of the Karnataka High Court and Madras High Court.

Credit: Gateway to Gaming