When skill becomes crime: How PROGA criminalises professional excellence
A recent Supreme Court hearing in the ongoing legal challenge to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act (PROGA) 2025 exposed a worrisome conflation: the bench, in a passing comment, questioned a professional chess player who wanted to join the batch of petitions whether earning income or livelihood through such games is betting or gambling. The Hon’ble Justices’ comments reveal that while the intent to protect citizens from the harms of illegal betting is commendable, equating all money-involved games with gambling oversimplifies a complex legal, social, and economic reality, jeopardising legitimate livelihoods.
India’s Legal Tradition Protects Skill
For decades, Indian courts have consistently differentiated skill-based games from gambling. Landmark rulings such as State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana (1967), and more recent judgments from the Madras and Allahabad High Courts, affirm that games like rummy, poker, and chess require predominant skill, and are thereby legally distinct from prohibited gambling. This principle of “preponderance of skill” forms the backbone of Indian gaming jurisprudence.
To understand why this distinction matters, consider chess-universally recognised as one of the highest echelons of skill-based competition. Chess demands extraordinary intellectual rigour, decades of study, strategic foresight, and the ability to compute multiple moves ahead. Professional chess players are revered as intellectuals and athletes of the mind.
Yet the moment monetary stakes are introduced to professional chess tournaments, under the logic of an indiscriminate ban, it becomes classified as gambling. This conflation is fundamentally unjust and runs counter to years of legal and cultural recognition of skill-based excellence.
The same principle applies with equal force to games like rummy and poker, disciplines that demand sophisticated decision-making, mathematical acumen, psychological insight, and rigorous strategic planning. These are not games of fortune. Rummy requires players to recognise patterns, calculate probabilities in real time, and execute complex strategies based on incomplete information. Poker similarly demands a mastery of odds, behavioural analysis, risk management, and dynamic decision-making under uncertainty. Professional players in these disciplines spend years honing their craft, developing systems of play, and achieving competitive superiority through acumen and skill, not chance. To classify such games of demonstrated expertise as gambling is to ignore their fundamental nature.
Critically, games like rummy and poker in their legitimate online forms operate as pure peer-to-peer competitions where players compete directly against one another. In this format, the platform operates as a neutral facilitator, a digital table taking a small commission for providing infrastructure and trust. There is no “house” winning against the players, which is a concept more familiar with gambling and casinos. The key question should not be whether money changes hands but what fundamentally determines the outcome. Skill-based games demand knowledge, strategy, constant judgment, and cognitive engagement, unlike games of chance where luck plays the dominant role. Importantly, the presence of monetary stakes cannot change the inherent nature of a game.
The Repercussions of Ambiguity
Mandating a blanket ban by muddying the lines between skill and chance has significant consequences. It harms regulatory clarity by creating ambiguity about permitted and prohibited games, further confusing users and driving activity underground. In fact, global regulatory experience provides significant evidence against simplistic prohibitions. Restrictive measures in countries like South Korea and China failed to curb addiction or illegal activity, merely shifting users offshore without improving wellbeing. Merely clamping down on illegal offshore platforms while retaining a prohibitive approach does not offer a viable solution either. Illegal operators are adept at evading the law. Quick changes in URLs, grey market wallets, and many other tactics allow them to resurface even after they are blocked by India’s law enforcement.
Way Forward: Upholding the Skill v Chance Distinction
The distinction between games of skill and games of chance must be the crux of any forward-looking regulation. Consumer protection is best served through evidence-based laws that recognise legitimate skill-based gaming platforms, subject them to transparent oversight, and equip them with responsible gaming tools. Such an approach bolsters public revenue, ensures player safety, curtails fly-by-night operators, and promotes innovation within a growing sector.
As the Supreme Court hearings on PROGA begin on November 26, 2025, it is to be seen whether the nuances of upholding the skill versus chance distinction are recognised or the sector is equated with gambling, thereby losing the foundation for balanced, forward-looking gaming regulation in India-the one that is vital to preserve constitutional freedoms, support livelihoods, and harness the enormous potential of the online gaming sector while safeguarding citizens from real harm.
The writer is former Deputy Secretary (Cyber & Information Security), Ministry of Home Affairs; views are personal
