NEW DELHI: A day after the Cabinet approved the introduction of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, which seeks to prohibit individuals or organisations from offering online money games or related services in India, shares of gaming platforms tumpled. In early trade, shares of Nazara Technologies fell by nearly 7%, while casino operator Delta Corp also plunged before a partial recovery later in the session. Other platforms providing online money games such as Dream11, Games24x7, Winzo, GamesKraft, 99Games, KheloFantasy, and My11Circle are now facing an existential crisis.
The government on Tuesday announced that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 will be introduced in the Lok Sabha. According to the proposed draft of the Bill, the government sees an urgent need to regulate online gaming—promoting social games and e-Sports on the one hand while banning online money gaming in the larger public interest.
What are the different online games?
The Online Gaming Bill, 2025 classifies online games into four types—e-sports, social games, educational games, and online money games. E-sports are competitive video games played in tournaments, similar to traditional sports. Games like PUBG, FIFA, or Valorant are examples. The government wants to promote e-sports as a skill-based activity that can create careers.
Social games are casual games played for fun and entertainment, often with friends such as Ludo King, Candy Crush, and online chess. These games are safe but will still be regulated for user safety, age-appropriate access, and data protection. Educational games are designed for learning and skill-building. They include math quizzes, coding games for kids, or apps like Duolingo. The Bill supports such games for their positive value.
Online money games, where players deposit money and play for cash rewards, will be completely banned because of their addictive and harmful effects. According to industry reports, India’s online gaming market is currently valued at $3.7 billion and is projected to more than double to $9.1 billion by 2029.
Why is the Bill needed?
According to the government, online gaming in India has witnessed an explosive rise, driven by affordable smartphones and deeper internet penetration in the country. Currently, there is no uniform legal framework to regulate the sector, nor is there a central authority to oversee content standards, user safety, data protection, or financial practices in social games.
“In the absence of a clearly defined framework, both e-Sports and online social games in India continue to operate in a regulatory grey zone, limiting the sector’s potential while exposing users—especially young audiences—to various risks,” reads the draft.
The government has also warned that unchecked growth of online gaming platforms has led to serious economic and psychological consequences, making clear rules urgent and necessary. It stressed that the growth of this sector must align with national interest, public safety, and ethical business practices.
The draft further highlights that unregulated expansion of online gaming has contributed to addiction, debt traps, suicides, and mental health issues. Many money gaming platforms are operating across state and national borders, often through offshore servers, making regulation even more pressing.
A structured regulatory approach, the government argues, will help address key concerns including age-appropriate access and addiction risks, particularly among vulnerable groups like minors. Moreover, formal recognition and governance of e-Sports will also allow India to tap into the global competitive gaming ecosystem and open new career opportunities for young players.
What is Prohibition in the Online Gaming Bill, 2025?
The proposed Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 clearly says that no one can run or help run online money games in India. This means individuals, companies, or any platform are not allowed to offer such games.
The Bill also bans advertisements. No person or organisation can make or publish ads—on TV, social media, or any online platform—that directly or indirectly encourage people to play money-based online games.
Even banks and payment companies cannot process or allow transactions related to these games. In short, prohibition here means a total ban on offering, promoting, or funding online money gaming.
To make sure the law is followed, the Central Government will set up or appoint an Authority. This Authority will issue orders and guidelines, and every gaming platform will have to obey them
Punishment and Penalty
As per the proposed law, anyone offering online money gaming services in violation of Section 5 can face imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to ₹1 crore, or both. The law also states that any person who makes or publishes advertisements for such games can be punished with imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to ₹50 lakh, or both. Similarly, anyone involved in processing or authorising payments for online money gaming can face imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to ₹1 crore, or both.
In the case of repeat offences, the punishment becomes stricter. A person convicted again under the same provision will face imprisonment of not less than three years and up to five years, along with a fine ranging from ₹1 crore to ₹2 crore. If a company commits an offence, the people responsible for running that part of the business—such as directors, managers, or officers—will also be held accountable. However, they may avoid punishment if they can prove that the offence occurred without their knowledge or that they took all reasonable steps to prevent it. If it is proved that the offence was committed with their consent, knowledge, or negligence, they will be punished.
Anyone who fails to follow orders or directions issued by the Central Government or the Authority can be fined up to ₹10 lakh. In addition, their registration to operate may be suspended or cancelled, and they may be banned from offering or promoting games. However, no penalty will be imposed without first giving the person a chance to be heard.
Industry Reaction
The All India Gaming Federation (AIGF) has written to Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking urgent intervention. The body has called for regulation instead of prohibition, warning that an outright ban could severely affect millions of players and the wider industry.
“The Bill, if enacted, will cause serious harm and drive players into the hands of fly-by-night operators,” the federation said, cautioning that a blanket ban would sound a “death knell” for a legitimate, job-creating sector.
Akshat Rathee, Co-founder and Managing Director of NODWIN Gaming, said the government’s intent to recognise and promote e-sports, as highlighted in the Bill, is an encouraging step towards building a structured and globally competitive ecosystem. “However, for this vision to truly materialize, it is critical that the terminology used in the bill, particularly the distinctions between esports, online gaming, online social gaming, and online money gaming be clearly defined and uniformly understood. The absence of precise definitions has often led to ambiguity and conflation around the term "esports". Such overlaps can create confusion not just for regulators, but also for players, teams, investors, and organizers who are working hard to build this industry,” said Rathee.
Animesh Thug Agarwal, Co-founder and CEO of S8UL, said that by drawing a clear line between skill-based competitive gaming and betting, the Bill safeguards the integrity of the ecosystem while opening doors for structured growth.
Rohit Kumar, Founding Partner at the public policy firm The Quantum Hub (TQH), argued that the real issue lies in due process. He said the online gaming sector has long faced regulatory uncertainty, but the government’s inconsistent approach is the most damaging—praising startups for jobs and FDI one day, then suddenly announcing a ban the next. “ Regulation is necessary, but abrupt moves like this undermine India’s reputation as a stable, predictable investment destination. If concerns existed, the government should have signalled them clearly from the outset,” said Kumar.