No interim relief for online gaming companies; Madras High Court to hear final arguments on July 13

The Madras High Court on Monday refused to grant any interim relief to online gaming companies that have challenged the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation Online Games Act, 2022..A Bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu told Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the petitioner gaming companies and the All India Gaming Federation, that the Court preferred to post the pleas for final hearing rather than hearing them on interim relief, since most arguments will be similar or identical..The senior counsel told the Court that the petitioner companies continued to face the threat of coercive criminal action despite the Supreme Court having held categorically that games such as Rummy and Poker were games of skill and not games of chance.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, told the Court that the petitioners had argued at lenghth previously for interim relief and had been denied the same by a bench of then Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy..The Court then said it will hear the final arguments on July 13..During an earlier hearing in the case, the Tamil Nadu government told the High Court that addiction to online gaming was "destroying families" and that its new Act banning all forms of online gaming was necessary to protect the citizens of the State.Sibal defended the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022. The Act that received the Governor's assent on April 10 this year prohibits all forms of online gambling and online 'games of chance' including online Rummy and Poker..The All India Gaming Federation and several online gaming companies approached the High Court challenging the validity of the Act.The petitioners had also sought an interim stay on the implementation of the Act, and interim protection from any coercive action.The Bench, however, refused to pass any interim orders, saying that any such decision could be taken only after issuing notice to the State government.