 |
|
The recently passed Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, represents a significant and arguably concerning expansion of the Union government's legislative power. The speed with which the Act was passed, coupled with its content, raises serious questions about the justification for such intervention and its potential impact on individual liberties and federalism. The core issue at hand is whether the Union government possesses the authority to dictate the games that adult citizens can play, particularly when those games involve real money and are conducted online. The article contests that the government has overreached its legislative power, impinging on the states' rights to regulate entertainment and amusement, including games and sports. According to the author, the Union government's powers, as defined in the Constitution, typically encompass public goods requiring scale or policy coordination across states. Games and sports do not fall under these categories, being traditionally relegated to the states. The Union government's rationale for assuming legislative competence over the online gaming sector centers on securing a safe and innovation-friendly digital environment, while addressing public health, morality, and financial sovereignty risks. It is clear that the central focus is on real-money games played online. The argument is made that gaming addictions and disorders are prevalent among players of online real-money games, potentially leading to financial precarity and mental health crises, particularly among the youth. Further, the government emphasizes the association of such games with financial fraud, money laundering, and cybercrime. However, the author argues that even public health is a state subject. The distinction drawn between offline and online real-money games is critical to understanding the government's rationale. While offline games like rummy and poker are subject to inherent constraints, such as the mathematical probabilities of the deck of cards, online games are perceived as more vulnerable to manipulation and fraud. The government fears that the software-based nature of online games allows for coded biases and the potential for players to hide behind anonymity to engage in illegal activities. This perceived vulnerability warrants the prohibition of online real-money games, even if the same games are permissible offline. The author contests the necessity and proportionality of an outright ban. Even if the government can demonstrate the architectural vulnerabilities of online money games, the means employed should be rationally related to the Gaming Act's objectives, which are to prevent a mental and financial health crisis. An outright ban raises questions about whether it effectively addresses the root causes of these problems or if it simply drives the activity underground. It suggests a paternalistic approach where the state is stepping in to guide the hands of free adults who are capable of making responsible decisions. Licensing requirements, stake limits, and other forms of fiscal controls might be less restrictive and more effective in achieving the same goals. The outright ban will likely lead to unregulated and untaxed gaming, accessible through VPNs and other means. Instead of the ban, there should be more mental health support and employment opportunities. Therefore, the law should be reviewed.
The constitutionality of the Gaming Act hinges on the justification for the Union government's intervention in an area traditionally under state jurisdiction. The article contends that the justification provided – the prevention of a mental and financial health crisis – is insufficient to warrant such a broad prohibition. The author argues that the government needs to present concrete evidence to support its claims regarding the unique risks associated with online real-money games. It is imperative to demonstrate how these risks differ significantly from those associated with offline gambling or other potentially harmful activities that are not subject to similar restrictions. The article specifically critiques the scant debate in Parliament when the law was passed. This lack of scrutiny and public discourse raises concerns about the thoroughness of the decision-making process and the extent to which the potential consequences of the Act were fully considered. The author questions the rationale behind the classification between online and offline real-money games, especially given the difficulty of effectively regulating online games that can easily circumvent restrictions. The suggestion is made that the government should explore alternative regulatory mechanisms, such as licensing requirements, stake limits, and stringent fiscal controls, instead of resorting to an outright ban. These measures could potentially address the perceived risks associated with online gaming without infringing on individual liberties. The article challenges the government's underlying assumption that an outright ban is the most effective way to protect the public from the potential harms of online real-money games. It suggests that a more nuanced and comprehensive approach, encompassing education, prevention, and treatment, may be more appropriate. Moreover, it highlights the importance of addressing the underlying social and economic factors that may contribute to problem gambling. The government should also try to offer mental health support and employment opportunities to those who might be drawn to squandering their youth on online real-money games due to a gaming disorder. The author questions at what point adults get to choose what games they play and take responsibility for the consequences of those choices without the state stepping in to guide their hand. The article suggests that the government's intervention is disproportionate and infringes on the autonomy of individuals to make their own choices.
Ultimately, the article concludes that the Gaming Act is a paternalistic and potentially unconstitutional overreach of the Union government's power. The law's justifications are considered weak, and the chosen approach – an outright ban – is deemed excessive and unlikely to be effective. The article emphasizes the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to regulating online gaming, one that respects individual liberties and recognizes the importance of state autonomy. The article further prompts reflection on the appropriate role of the government in regulating personal choices and behaviors. While the government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm, it must also respect their autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions. The challenge lies in finding the right balance between these competing interests. In the specific context of online gaming, the author urges the government to consider alternative regulatory mechanisms that are less intrusive and more likely to achieve the desired outcomes. It is clear that the question of what constitutes a permissible level of government intervention in the lives of adult citizens is a contentious one, especially in a free country. This is made more questionable if the intervention infringes on the legislative freedom that is otherwise allotted to state governments under the constitution. The act opens a door for the government to exert unwarranted and excessive control. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is a subject that requires serious constitutional and legal attention, and warrants further inquiry into its justifications and constitutionality. If found to be excessively paternalistic, the law should be amended to suit the individual and the state.
Source: Best of Both Sides: Gaming Act is a paternalistic move — and reeks of legislative overreach