Regulating Online Gambling In India: From The Skill–Chance Binary To Risk-Based Digital Governance
Anoop Mahobia, LLM, SoS in Law, PRSU Raipur
ABSTRACT
The regulation of gambling in India has historically rested upon two interrelated assumptions: first, that betting and gambling fall principally within the legislative domain of the States; and secondly, that a legally meaningful distinction can be drawn between games of skill and games of chance. The migration of gambling and gaming into digital environments has destabilised both assumptions. Online platforms operate across territorial boundaries, integrate gaming with digital payments and algorithmic advertising, and enable continuous participation without the physical infrastructure contemplated by nineteenth-century gambling legislation.
The Supreme Court's decision in State of Tamil Nadu v Junglee Games India Pvt Ltd, 2026 INSC 594, marks a significant constitutional development. The Court held that Entry 34 of List II—“betting and gambling”—is not confined to betting on games of chance and that staking money on an uncertain outcome may constitute betting even where the underlying game predominantly involves skill. The Court further upheld challenged provisions of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka legislation regulating or prohibiting online gaming involving stakes. This decision fundamentally alters the jurisprudential position that had previously placed games of skill outside the principal field of gambling regulation.
Almost simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 (‘PROG Act’), creating a national framework and prohibiting online money games irrespective of whether they are based on skill, chance or both. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules 2026 subsequently operationalized the statutory framework and provided for the Online Gaming Authority of India.
This article argues that these developments resolve the traditional skill– chance controversy but do not, by themselves, produce a coherent regulatory philosophy. The central problem has shifted from classification of games to classification of risk. A prohibition that treats all online money games alike may be administratively clear but is not necessarily the most proportionate or technologically sustainable method of regulating the digital gaming ecosystem. Comparative experience from the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States demonstrates that online gambling can be governed through materially different models: licensing and harm reduction, targeted prohibition and enforcement, or federal–state pluralism respectively.
The article proposes a risk-based Indian model founded on differentiated regulatory tiers, prohibition of high-risk and exploitative money gaming, robust age and identity verification, responsible-gaming controls, payment surveillance, algorithmic accountability, advertising restrictions, independent grievance redressed and coordinated Centre–State enforcement. It concludes that India's next stage of gambling regulation should move beyond the binary of “skill versus chance” towards a constitutional model of risk-proportionate digital governance.
Keywords: Online gambling; betting; digital governance; consumer protection; responsible online gaming.
