The online gaming law has sparked debate on the need for effective technological monitoring and the exceptional powers the government has given itself, such as the authority to arrest without a warrant, which legal experts said raised constitutional concerns.

Signed into law by the President on August 22, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, prompted immediate reactions across the industry.

Fantasy sports platform Dream11 — a key sponsor of the Indian cricket team — shut down all its paid contests within hours, switching to a "free-to-play" model. Two days later, the BCCI formally ended its partnership with the platform, signalling a domino effect in India's online gaming ecosystem.

The law is India's first comprehensive legislative effort to regulate online money gaming, aimed at safeguarding citizens from financial ruin and preventing extreme outcomes such as suicides reportedly linked to gambling addiction.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa welcomed the move, saying that the law represents a forward-looking step that balances innovation with public interest by encouraging healthy gaming while firmly prohibiting online money games that are a danger to society. But Pahwa also raised questions on the need for effective technological monitoring.

However, according to advocate Siddharth Mahajan, partner at Athena Legal, the law grants exceptional power to authorised officers to search and arrest without a warrant, among other things.

Section 16 of the bill confers sweeping powers on authorised officers to enter "any place", including physical premises, vehicles, digital spaces and electronic devices, and search and arrest without a warrant.

"Under Indian law, such powers are exceptional and usually granted in matters like narcotics or anti-terror actions. Applying them to online gaming as a commercial activity raises constitutional concerns," Mahajan said.

He questioned the ability to override access controls and seize electronic records without prior judicial order, which seems disproportionate to the nature of the law. "While sub-section (2) provides for production before a magistrate, the initial absence of judicial oversight makes the provision vulnerable to constitutional challenge. In essence, the section ignores due process safeguards and may face judicial scrutiny if tested in courts," he said.

Advocate Utkarsh Singh said the law, which gives immense power of search and arrest to the officer authorised under Section 15, however, fails to address the fundamental issue that these unregulated gaming platforms mostly have their servers outside India.

"Such websites work on faceless and contactless transactions, and merely giving powers of arrest without warrant will not solve much of the problem, which is similar to chasing a ghost in the air with the best of handguns," Singh said. "Even if the victims are within the borders, mere shifting of servers outside the country will allow the real culprits to evade the clutches of the law."

Kriti Singh, associate director of The Dialogue, a public policy think tank, flagged concerns that lakhs of people were losing jobs and raised doubts that the prohibitive approach would push players into shadow markets, worsening fiscal losses and regulatory hurdles. "A more effective approach would be to strengthen the regulated real money gaming ecosystem, ensuring transparency and securing substantial government revenues," she said.

The law proposes imprisonment up to three years or a fine of up to ₹1 crore or both against those involved in offering or facilitating online money gaming. Advertising money games may lead to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to ₹50 lakh or both. Repeat offenders will face harsher punishments, including imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and fines up to ₹2 crore.

Till the law came into effect, gambling was punishable under Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which prescribes a minimum jail period of one year, extendable up to seven years, along with fines. However, this provision applied to a group of people and not individuals.

Pointing out the differences from traditional gambling laws, Pahwa said the new Act was different from traditional gambling regulations such as Section 112(1) as it went beyond merely criminalising unauthorised betting and gambling.

"It provides a comprehensive framework for the online gaming sector, including e-sports, educational games and social gaming, while prohibiting harmful money games," Pahwa said.