When Protection Becomes Overreach
The India Commentary view
View all posts by this Author
By Our Editorial Team
First publised on 2025-08-27 00:29:11
About the Author
The India Commentary view
View all posts by this Author
In a bid to shield citizens from addiction, financial ruin, and unlawful exploitation, Parliament has passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, ushering in a sweeping ban on real-money online gaming. Fantasy sports, rummy, poker and other wagering formats now stand outlawed. The law criminalises not only play but also advertising and financial facilitation, with penalties that include steep fines and imprisonment.
The government's intentions are clear: to protect vulnerable users from predatory apps, curb money laundering, and prevent the spiralling mental health crises linked to gaming addiction. It has also promised to encourage healthier alternatives such as esports, educational games and social gaming. The objective is laudable. Yet the manner of implementation raises concerns that this may be an overreach whose unintended consequences could outweigh its benefits.
For nearly a decade, India's real-money gaming sector grew into one of the most dynamic corners of the digital economy. Valued at more than Rs 20,000 crore, it attracted foreign investment, created employment for over two lakh people, and contributed sizeable tax revenues to the exchequer. Overnight, this entire industry has been pushed into uncertainty. Companies that once defined the sector's growth have seen revenues collapse. Thousands of jobs are now at risk.
Beyond the economic fallout lies a behavioural reality: demand does not vanish with prohibition. Instead, it often migrates to shadow markets. There is already concern that users will shift to offshore betting platforms that escape Indian taxation, regulation and consumer safeguards. In such a scenario, the government loses both oversight and revenue, and the very people it seeks to protect may be exposed to greater risk.
None of this is to suggest that regulation is unnecessary. On the contrary, real-money gaming required strong guardrails: licensing norms, age restrictions, spending caps, grievance redressal mechanisms, and clear demarcations between games of skill and games of chance. A phased transition, allowing legitimate operators to adapt while tightening the noose on exploitative practices, might have struck a more pragmatic balance.
Instead, the abrupt nature of the ban has created a vacuum. It is a vacuum that illicit actors will be quick to exploit. It is also one that undermines India's image as a stable digital market for global investors.
The law's moral intent cannot be doubted. Gambling addiction has ruined families, and the need for protective regulation is undeniable. But legislation that seeks to protect must not end up paralysing an entire sector. The challenge before the government is not to abolish digital entertainment but to reform it - firmly, transparently, and with sensitivity to its economic and social stakes.
In the final reckoning, protection is most effective not when it is absolute, but when it is balanced. India must regulate online gaming with nuance and vigilance, not eliminate it in haste.
