PROGA vs State Gaming Acts: Central vs State Gaming Law India 2026
Quick action
Try the recommended app
The 30-second answer
PROGA Act 2025, the central law that received presidential assent on 22 August 2025 and entered full enforcement on 1 May 2026, overrides every state gaming act on the supply-side prohibition of online money games. Under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, where a central law and a state law on a concurrent-list subject conflict, the central law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling Act 2022, the Karnataka Police Act 2021 amendment with its 2024 poker and rummy carve-out, the Kerala Gaming Act 1960 application, the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act 1974 with its 2020 amendment, the Telangana Gaming Act with its 2017 amendment, and the Odisha Prevention of Gambling Act 1955 all remain on the statute book in May 2026, but they no longer determine whether an online money game can be supplied to players in India. PROGA Section 5 does. State acts continue to govern three things that PROGA does not touch: advertising standards within the state, regulatory licensing of physical gaming premises, and lottery. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on a PROGA-specific constitutional challenge, but the Madras High Court reserved orders on 9 May 2026 in a constitutional petition and the Karnataka High Court is hearing a separate operator-side challenge. Use the Law Conflict Resolver widget below to find out exactly which law governs your specific situation today.
How this comparison is structured
This page is written for four kinds of reader. The casual player who wants to know whether their state still has any room left for paid play after PROGA. The operator or affiliate trying to understand which residual state-law penalties might stack on top of central law penalties. The NRI sending money home or playing from abroad who needs to know whether state lines still matter. And the lawyer or compliance professional who needs a clean Article 254 framework with state-by-state comparison.
If you want the short read, the 30-second answer above plus the side-by-side comparison table later in this page is enough. The widget above resolves any specific combination of state, activity and role in under five seconds. If you want the long read, the article walks through Article 254 doctrine in plain English, compares PROGA against six state acts line by line, lays out what each side prohibits that the other does not, runs eight realistic conflict scenarios, tracks every pending Supreme Court and High Court case, surveys operator response in Tamil Nadu versus Karnataka, and answers 25 of the most common questions at the end. There are also three full case studies showing how the law actually behaves in practice.
The data on this page is accurate as of 21 May 2026, exactly three weeks after full PROGA enforcement and three days after the most recent Madras High Court hearing. We update the litigation tracker on the 21st of every month.
Article 254 doctrine of repugnancy explained in plain English
Article 254 sits inside Part XI of the Constitution of India, which deals with the legislative relationship between the Union and the states. The doctrine of repugnancy is the constitutional rule that decides what happens when Parliament passes a law and a state legislature has also passed a law on the same subject, and the two laws say different things. The rule is short but the consequences are large.
Article 254 clause 1 reads, in substance, that if any provision of a law made by the state legislature is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament, and the central law is one that Parliament is competent to enact under the concurrent list, then the central law prevails and the state law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. Clause 2 carves out an exception: a state law reserved for and assented to by the President can prevail even against a later central law, but only within that state, and only on subjects where the President has expressly assented.
The three preconditions for repugnancy to bite are easy to remember. First, the subject must be on the Concurrent List in Schedule VII, where both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate. Second, both laws must actually be in force, not just on paper. Third, there must be a genuine conflict, not just an overlap. The Supreme Court of India has worked through these tests over decades, with the leading decisions being Deep Chand v State of Uttar Pradesh in 1959 for the basic framework, Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v State of Bihar in 1983 for the test of direct conflict, and M Karunanidhi v Union of India in 1979 for the analysis of when a state law occupies the same field as a central law.
The doctrine applies neatly to PROGA versus state gaming acts. The subject matter, regulation of online money games, sits on the Concurrent List under Entry 31 (which covers communications including telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication) read with Entry 26 of List III (commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts), and arguably under Entry 1 of List III (criminal law). PROGA was enacted by Parliament in August 2025 using the residual power to legislate on online communications, which it described as a matter of national concern given the cross-state nature of internet supply. The central law and the various state laws are both in force. And there is a genuine conflict on the supply side because PROGA prohibits the supply of online money games while several state laws either permit them with conditions or treat skill-based versions as exempt.
The consequence of the doctrine of repugnancy is precise: state law is void to the extent of the inconsistency. Not entirely void. Only the parts of the state law that conflict with the central law fall away. The state act continues to operate in every area where it does not collide with PROGA. This is the key insight that the rest of this comparison rests on. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling Act 2022 did not stop existing on 22 August 2025. It just stopped being the operative law on whether paid online rummy can be supplied to a player in Chennai. The supply-side answer is now in PROGA. The advertising-standards answer, the on-ground-investigation answer, and the local-licensing answer remain in the TN Act.
There is one subtlety that often confuses non-lawyers. Article 254 clause 2 allows a state law that has received presidential assent to override a later central law, but only if Parliament has not since amended or supplemented the area. Several state gaming acts (TN 2022, AP 2020) were reserved for presidential assent and received it. The argument that these state laws should therefore override PROGA fails because PROGA is the later central law in time, and Article 254 clause 2 only protects the state law against earlier central laws or where Parliament has not occupied the same field afterward. Once Parliament passes a fresh central law on the same subject matter, the earlier presidential assent to a state law does not bar repugnancy. This is the holding in M Karunanidhi cited above, and is the answer to the Tamil Nadu government argument that its presidential-assented Act of 2022 should survive PROGA.
A second subtlety worth flagging is the difference between direct repugnancy and occupied-field repugnancy. Direct repugnancy is when the state law says one thing and the central law says the opposite thing on the same factual situation. The Karnataka 2024 carve-out for online rummy (which never actually applied to online but was argued by some operators to do so) versus PROGA Section 5 absolute prohibition is a direct repugnancy if the carve-out is read to cover online. Occupied-field repugnancy is when Parliament has so comprehensively legislated on a subject that there is no remaining space for the state law to operate, even if the two laws do not contradict at the literal level. PROGA’s combination of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 plus the OGAI registration framework arguably occupies the entire field of online money games regulation, meaning even state-law provisions that do not directly contradict PROGA may be displaced. The doctrine of pith and substance is the related inquiry: if the true character of the state law is gambling-prevention but its incidental effect touches online communications, the state law may still survive; if the true character is regulation of online communications, the state law is in PROGA territory and falls.
A third subtlety relates to the residuary power. Some commentators argued in late 2025 that PROGA could be sustained under Parliament’s residuary legislative power in Entry 97 of List I, on the theory that online gaming is not specifically enumerated in any list and therefore falls into the residuary basket. The Union has not formally relied on Entry 97 in its filings; the Union’s position has consistently been that PROGA rests on Entry 31 of List III (communications) read with the Information Technology Act 2000 framework. The Madras High Court hearing in April 2026 spent considerable time on this question. The choice between concurrent-list source and residuary source matters because residuary power is exclusive to Parliament, meaning state acts could not have legislated in the field at all; concurrent-list source means states could have legislated but their laws are now displaced by the central law. The petitioners argue the field belongs on List II Entry 34, the Union argues List III Entry 31, and the residuary question becomes moot under either characterisation.
Side-by-side comparison: PROGA vs six state acts
The table below is the single most important reference on this page. It compares PROGA Act 2025 against the six state acts that have the most current relevance: Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha. For each axis, the verdict reflects post-1-May-2026 enforcement.
| Axis | PROGA Act 2025 (Central) | TN Online Gambling Act 2022 | KA Police Act 2021 + 2024 carve-out | KL Gaming Act 1960 | AP Gaming Act 1974 + 2020 | TS Gaming Act + 2017 | OD Prevention of Gambling Act 1955 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | All India, online money games only | Tamil Nadu, online and offline gambling | Karnataka, all forms (with 2024 skill carve-out for offline poker / rummy) | Kerala, all forms with skill exemption history | Andhra Pradesh, all forms; 2020 amendment caught online money games | Telangana, all forms; 2017 amendment caught online | Odisha, all forms |
| Skill carve-out | None. Section 2(j) defines online money game on stake basis, no skill exemption | None. Section 2(k) catches all online games for stake including skill | Yes, after 2024 amendment for offline poker and rummy only | Yes, historically for rummy (Kerala HC 2021 stay); ambiguous post 2024 | None after 2020 amendment | None after 2017 amendment | Section 12 historically exempts skill games |
| Maximum operator penalty | 3 years imprisonment plus fine 1 crore rupees per offence, asset freeze | 3 years plus fine 10 lakh rupees | 6 months for unauthorised online; offline carve-out limits | 1 year plus fine 1 lakh rupees | 1 year plus fine 1 lakh rupees | 3 years plus fine 10 lakh rupees | 1 year plus fine 50,000 rupees |
| Maximum player penalty | None directly (supply-side law only) | 3 months plus fine 5,000 rupees | None for offline carve-out; up to 1 month for unauthorised online | 1 month plus fine 200 rupees | 1 month plus fine 500 rupees | 1 month plus fine 1,000 rupees | 1 month plus fine 200 rupees |
| Covers offshore operators | Yes, Section 7 plus IT Act 69A blocking, ED action under PMLA | No extraterritorial reach without central support | No extraterritorial reach | No extraterritorial reach | Limited; 2020 amendment attempted but inconsistently enforced | Limited | No |
| Covers advertising | Yes, Section 8, up to 10 crore rupees per breach | Yes, separate advertising provision | Limited to state media | Limited to state media | Limited to state media | Yes, 2017 amendment | Limited |
| Covers physical premises | No (online only) | Yes, common-gaming-house definition | Yes, common-gaming-house plus licensed offline poker rooms after 2024 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Covers lottery | Carved out; Lotteries Regulation Act 1998 governs | Carved out, separate state lottery framework | Carved out | Carved out (Kerala state lottery active) | Carved out | Carved out | Carved out |
| Covers state-licensed physical casinos | No | No, none in Tamil Nadu | No, none in Karnataka | No, none in Kerala | No, none in Andhra Pradesh | No, none in Telangana | No, none in Odisha |
| Status of presidential assent | Central act, no assent required | Received, but does not block PROGA repugnancy (M Karunanidhi doctrine) | Mixed; 2024 amendment did not seek federal review | Older statute; no current federal review | 2020 amendment received | 2017 amendment received | Not relevant |
| Pending constitutional challenge | Yes (Karnataka HC, Madras HC) | Yes (challenge to 2022 Act reenactment under PROGA repugnancy) | Yes (operator-side challenge to 2024 carve-out limits) | Latent; no fresh challenge in 2026 | Latent | Latent | None |
This table compresses the full picture into one screen. Three patterns deserve highlighting. First, every state act maintains some residual function beyond what PROGA does, particularly on offline premises and on-ground operations. Second, the operator-side penalty under PROGA is materially larger than under any single state act (1 crore rupees per offence versus 10 lakh rupees in TN, 1 lakh rupees in AP), which is why prosecutors prefer to charge under PROGA even where state law also bites. Third, the only state with a genuine post-PROGA carve-out is Karnataka, and even there the carve-out only applies to offline poker and rummy, not online, so PROGA still wins on the online side.
What PROGA prohibits that state laws do not
PROGA Act 2025 introduces four prohibitions that no state act has historically reached. Each one is a piece of new ground covered by central law and not by any state law.
Cross-state supply-side jurisdiction. PROGA Section 5 prohibits the supply of an online money game anywhere in India. The central law treats the internet as a single national space, which means an operator in Bengaluru serving a player in Chennai is caught by Section 5 regardless of how the two state acts treat the activity individually. No state law before PROGA had clean cross-state reach. The AP Gaming Act 2020 amendment tried to claim extraterritorial application but enforcement against operators incorporated in other states ran into immediate jurisdictional resistance. PROGA solves that with national application from day one.
Offshore operator reach. PROGA Section 7 read with the IT Act Section 69A blocking framework lets the central government instruct internet service providers and bank rails to block offshore sites and their payment connections. The Enforcement Directorate can pursue offshore operators under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 where any proceeds touch Indian banking infrastructure. No state law has the constitutional or statutory tools to do this. Geofencing of roughly 220 offshore sites since 1 May 2026 is a PROGA achievement, not a state-act achievement.
Centralised advertising prohibition with monetary penalty up to 10 crore rupees. PROGA Section 8 prohibits all advertising of online money games across all media, with a per-breach penalty of up to 10 crore rupees and the ability for the central government to compel removal within 24 hours. State acts have always had advertising provisions inside their boundaries but the penalties were small (typically up to 50,000 rupees) and the geographic reach limited to the state. PROGA brings national reach and a meaningfully deterrent penalty for the first time.
Online Gaming Authority of India and the permitted-format regime. PROGA established OGAI on 1 October 2025 as the central registering body for permitted formats, including e-sports and free-to-play formats. State acts have no equivalent administrative architecture. OGAI also runs the appeal mechanism for operators who believe their format falls outside Section 2(j) and into the permitted-formats list. This federal regulatory plumbing did not exist before PROGA.
What state laws prohibit that PROGA does not
PROGA is deliberately narrow. It targets online money games and the connected commercial ecosystem. State acts continue to do useful work in four areas that PROGA leaves untouched.
Physical premises licensing and the common-gaming-house concept. Every state act since the Public Gambling Act 1867 has built around the idea of the common gaming house, a physical premises where games of chance are played for stakes. Tamil Nadu Section 4, Karnataka Sections 78 to 80 of the Police Act, Kerala Section 4, AP Section 4, Telangana Section 4, and Odisha Section 4 all preserve the same definitional and enforcement architecture. PROGA does not touch any of this. A gaming cafe in Chennai with paid card tables is a state-law problem and only a state-law problem. The Tamil Nadu police can shut it down under the TN Act without ever referencing PROGA.
State lottery. The Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998 is a central act but it explicitly preserves state authority to authorise and run lotteries. Kerala, Sikkim, Punjab, Goa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and West Bengal all operate state lotteries in May 2026. PROGA Section 2 carves lottery out of the definition of online money game. The full state lottery regime, including authorisation, sales agents, and prize payouts, sits outside PROGA.
State-licensed physical casinos. Goa and Sikkim are the only states with operating licensed physical casino frameworks. The Goa Public Gambling Act 1976 as amended permits onshore and offshore casinos on payment of state licence fees, and the Sikkim Casinos (Control and Tax) Act 2002 governs land-based casinos in Sikkim. PROGA does not touch either regime because PROGA is an online-only law. Goa and Sikkim casinos continue to operate, with PAN requirements, Section 194B TDS at 30 percent on winnings above 10,000 rupees, and state revenue collection unaffected.
Localised advertising standards and on-ground promotion. Even though PROGA Section 8 captures the bulk of advertising regulation, state acts have separate provisions covering things like sticker posters in commercial areas, banner advertising near schools, and door-to-door promotion of gaming-related products. State-level CCPA enforcement and ASCI complaints continue to use the relevant state provisions for on-ground enforcement.
There are two additional state-law areas that PROGA leaves untouched and that are worth flagging for completeness. First, the state-level treatment of horse racing, which several states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Punjab) regulate under separate horse-racing acts dating from the 1950s and 1960s. Horse racing has historically been treated as a game of skill in Indian law (K R Lakshmanan v State of Tamil Nadu 1996) and is regulated through state-level race club licensing, totalisator betting, and bookmaker rules. PROGA does not touch any of this because PROGA is online-only and most horse race betting is on-course; online race betting where it exists is treated separately under state law and the Supreme Court 1996 ruling. Second, state-level treatment of physical card rooms attached to clubs, recreational centres, and registered associations, which many state acts permit on a private-club exemption basis. The TN Act exempts members-only clubs registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Karnataka Police Act has a similar exemption. PROGA does not affect any of this because it is offline and not for monetary stake in the PROGA sense.
The practical consequence is that operator counsel and player counsel both need to read both regimes for any factual scenario. PROGA tells you the answer on whether the online money game can be supplied at all. The state act tells you the answer on premises, lottery, casino, club exemption, horse race, and on-ground advertising. In litigation, the order of analysis matters: start with PROGA Section 2(j) to see whether the activity is an online money game at all; if yes, PROGA governs the supply-side question; if no, the activity is outside PROGA and the state act is the only law in play. Skip steps at your peril.
Eight conflict resolution scenarios
The doctrine of repugnancy is easier to understand through worked examples than through abstract framing. The eight scenarios below cover the situations real players, operators and advisors encounter every week. Each one is resolved using Article 254 plus PROGA Section 5 to 8 plus the relevant state act.
Scenario one: state says skill-game is permitted but PROGA bans it. The Karnataka 2024 amendment to the Police Act carved out offline poker and rummy as games of skill and removed them from the common-gaming-house definition. An operator based in Bengaluru argued in February 2026 that its online poker product should benefit from the same carve-out. The conflict is direct because PROGA Section 5 prohibits the supply of online poker as an online money game while the Karnataka amendment treats it as outside the gambling definition. Article 254 resolves the conflict in favour of PROGA. The Karnataka carve-out continues to operate for offline poker rooms registered under state rules but does not insulate online operators. The operator suspended its India-facing online poker product on 26 February 2026.
Scenario two: state says banned and PROGA also banned. Tamil Nadu has long taken the toughest position on online money games. The TN Prohibition of Online Gambling Act 2022, after the 2023 challenge and 2024 reenactment, prohibits all online money games including skill-based variants. PROGA Section 5 does the same. The two laws point in the same direction. Both can apply cumulatively, because Article 254 only voids the state law to the extent of inconsistency, and where the two laws point the same way there is no inconsistency. The practical result is dual liability: an operator faces PROGA Section 6 penalty (up to 3 years and 1 crore rupees) plus TN Act Section 11 penalty (up to 3 years and 10 lakh rupees). Madras High Court is hearing a constitutional challenge to TN reenactment but has explicitly not stayed PROGA enforcement.
Scenario three: state has no online-specific law and PROGA only. Several northern and eastern states, including Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and most of the north-east outside Nagaland, never enacted online-specific gaming legislation. The Public Gambling Act 1867 extension was the only state-side instrument and it was drafted around physical premises. In these states, PROGA Section 5 is the sole law in play for online money games. There is no Article 254 question to resolve because there is no state law to be repugnant to. PROGA operates cleanly.
Scenario four: state law permits, PROGA bans, but only for paid; FTP is permitted everywhere. Dream11 and MPL run free-to-play coin contests across all 28 states and 8 union territories. PROGA Section 2(j) requires a monetary stake to engage. State acts likewise require betting or wagering for value. Neither law catches FTP. There is no Article 254 conflict because both regimes leave the activity untouched. This is the safest configuration for any operator from May 2026 onward and is the route taken by every major fantasy and rummy operator since 22 August 2025.
Scenario five: state law permits lottery, PROGA does not touch lottery. Kerala State Lotteries runs a daily lottery under the Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Act 2005. PROGA explicitly carves lottery out under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998 reservation. There is no Article 254 conflict and no PROGA interference. Kerala Lottery continues unchanged, including the Section 194B TDS at 30 percent on winnings above 10,000 rupees.
Scenario six: offshore operator targets Indian players, state law has limited reach, PROGA has wide reach. A Curacao-licensed operator runs slot games accessible from India under a non-INR betting model. Tamil Nadu Act has no extraterritorial reach to bind the offshore operator directly. PROGA Section 7 plus IT Act 69A blocking does have reach. Article 254 does not really come into play here because the state law is not in operational conflict with PROGA; it is just outmatched on jurisdictional reach. The operator domain is geofenced from 1 May 2026 and any affiliate or advertiser in India is prosecutable under PROGA Section 5 abetment.
Scenario seven: physical casino in Goa, online play also accessible from same operator group. The Goa-licensed casino operator runs a separate online slots site through a related entity in Curacao. The physical casino is fine under Goa Public Gambling Act 1976 and outside PROGA scope (PROGA is online-only). The online entity is caught by PROGA Section 7. Article 254 again does not arise because the state law is not in conflict with PROGA on the physical-casino side. The two activities are governed by two different regimes operating in parallel.
Scenario eight: advertising of free-to-play product that shares brand with a paid product. The most contentious area of enforcement in May 2026. Dream11 runs a free-to-play product that uses the same brand name and visual identity as the pre-22-August-2025 paid product. PROGA Section 8 read with the MIB advisory dated 2 May 2026 treats this as a surrogate advertisement for an online money game. State acts have separate advertising prohibitions with smaller penalty caps. Article 254 makes the central rule operative; the state acts continue to apply on local-publication enforcement. The penalty cap on surrogate ads is up to 10 crore rupees per breach under PROGA Section 8.
The pattern is consistent. Where PROGA prohibits and state law also prohibits, both apply cumulatively. Where PROGA prohibits and state law permits, PROGA wins via Article 254. Where PROGA does not touch the activity (lottery, physical casino, FTP, offline gaming cafe), state law operates alone. Where state law does not touch and PROGA does (offshore, cross-state online, central-level advertising), PROGA operates alone.
Three additional scenarios are worth flagging because they recur often enough in operator and player questions to deserve specific treatment. Scenario nine: a player in Tamil Nadu uses a VPN to mask location and joins a paid contest hosted by an offshore operator. PROGA Section 5 prohibits the operator from supplying the contest, and the offshore operator is caught regardless of the VPN. The player is caught by the TN Act in Tamil Nadu because the TN Act includes player-side liability. The VPN does not change the legal analysis; it only changes the evidentiary question of whether the prosecution can prove the player was in TN at the time. FEMA exposure on cross-border money flow adds a third layer. Scenario ten: an operator runs an Indian-only FTP product but accepts micropayments for cosmetic upgrades and skins. The cosmetic upgrades are not the contest stake, so the activity stays outside Section 2(j) provided the cosmetics cannot be exchanged for cash or contest entry. This is the line that Indian FTP operators have walked since August 2025. State acts do not catch the cosmetic economy either because the cosmetics do not have monetary value in the betting-for-stake sense. Scenario eleven: a residential complex in Bengaluru hosts a poker tournament for residents only, with entry fees and cash prizes. PROGA does not apply because the tournament is offline. Karnataka 2024 carve-out for offline poker may apply if the tournament is held in registered premises, but a residential complex is not registered premises. The TN Act would not apply because the location is in Karnataka. The activity is technically a common gaming house under Karnataka Police Act Section 78, exposing the organisers to up to 6 months imprisonment plus fine.
Pending Supreme Court litigation tracker
The Supreme Court of India has not yet heard a PROGA-specific constitutional challenge in its full bench form, but several writ petitions are in queue and the High Courts are actively litigating the doctrine. The position as of 21 May 2026 is below.
Madras High Court constitutional challenge to PROGA Section 5 and 6, filed by All India Gaming Federation in October 2025. The bench reserved orders on 9 May 2026 after final arguments. The petitioners argue that PROGA exceeds Parliament’s legislative competence because online gaming is a state subject under List II Entry 34 (betting and gambling), not a concurrent subject. The Union counter-argues that the regulation of online communications and the cross-state nature of internet supply pulls the subject into Entry 31 of List III. The bench is expected to deliver judgment in June or July 2026. The bench did not grant a stay against PROGA enforcement at any point during the hearing.
Karnataka High Court operator-side challenge to PROGA Section 6 penalty, filed by Junglee Games in January 2026. The bench is currently hearing arguments on whether the 1 crore rupees per offence penalty is proportionate to the offence under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g). The case is at the rejoinder stage. No interim relief granted to date. Hearings continue into July 2026.
Punjab and Haryana High Court challenge to OGAI registration framework, filed by Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports in December 2025. Argues that OGAI’s discretion to refuse registration for permitted formats is constitutionally unguided and violates Article 14. Bench has indicated this is a fit case for reference to the Supreme Court. No stay granted.
Supreme Court of India direct petition under Article 32 by Junglee Games and three other operators, filed January 2026. Court has tagged the matter for hearing along with the Madras HC and Karnataka HC outcomes. Listing schedule still tentative; likely September 2026 if High Court judgments come out by July or August.
Supreme Court of India GST dispute on online gaming (separate but related), filed by gaming industry coalition in 2023. Bench reserved orders on 6 May 2026 after extensive arguments. This dispute concerns the 28 percent GST on entry fee versus on gross gaming revenue, and is technically separate from PROGA, but the outcome will influence operator economics and therefore the willingness to continue PROGA challenges. Judgment expected in May or June 2026.
The pattern across these cases is consistent. None of the High Courts has granted a stay on PROGA enforcement. All of them have admitted the constitutional challenge but allowed enforcement to continue while hearings proceed. The Madras HC judgment, expected first, will set the tone. If Madras upholds PROGA, Karnataka and the Supreme Court likely follow the same line. If Madras strikes down or reads down Section 5, the Supreme Court will accelerate its hearing and may grant interim relief. The current consensus in the bar is that PROGA will survive but Section 8 advertising penalties may be read down for proportionality.
A closer look at the legislative-competence question that is at the heart of the Madras petition deserves a paragraph because it is the single most important constitutional issue in 2026 Indian gaming law. List II Entry 34 reads “Betting and gambling”, which has historically been taken to give states the exclusive right to regulate gambling. The Public Gambling Act 1867, originally a central act, is treated today as an adopted state act because gambling moved from the federal list to the state list after independence. Petitioners argue that PROGA is essentially a gambling regulation dressed up as a communications regulation. The Union counter-argues that the online dimension of gaming is fundamentally a communications question, that the cross-state nature of internet supply gives Parliament natural competence under Entry 31 of List III, and that the analogy is to broadcasting where Parliament regulates the medium even though the content may be state-licensed. The Madras bench spent four days of hearing on this question alone in April 2026. The bench’s reasoning on legislative competence will decide the case.
A second issue likely to be addressed by the Madras judgment is whether the OGAI permitted-formats list is constitutionally adequate. Petitioners argue that vesting a registering authority with discretion to grant or refuse exemption from Section 2(j) is an excessive delegation that violates Article 14. The Union argues that OGAI’s discretion is sufficiently guided by the statutory definition in Section 2(j) and by the procedural framework in the Implementation Rules 2025. The Punjab and Haryana HC petition raises the same point in a different formulation. If Madras reads down the OGAI provisions for being constitutionally inadequate, the operator path through the permitted-formats route becomes substantially easier; if Madras upholds the current architecture, OGAI registration remains a discretionary and difficult-to-secure route.
A third issue is the relationship between PROGA and the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in K R Lakshmanan v State of Tamil Nadu and the earlier State of AP v K Satyanarayana 1968. Both rulings treat rummy as a game of skill outside the criminal-gambling definition. Petitioners argue PROGA cannot constitutionally override Supreme Court rulings on the substantive character of a game. The Union argues that PROGA does not characterise rummy as gambling; it characterises rummy as an online money game, which is a separate statutory category that does not depend on the skill-versus-chance distinction. The Madras bench has indicated it sees the Union’s position as legally tenable but constitutionally awkward. A reasoned judgment on this point, regardless of outcome, will guide future legislative drafting in this area.
Industry response: operators in Tamil Nadu versus Karnataka
The operator-side response to PROGA differs sharply between the two states with the most distinctive state-law positions. Tamil Nadu, with its 2022 reenacted absolute prohibition, gave operators less ground to defend even before PROGA. Karnataka, with its 2024 carve-out for offline poker and rummy, started from a position closer to permissive and had farther to fall.
Tamil Nadu position. Junglee Games, RummyCircle, Adda52, A23, and the smaller TN-incorporated operators all suspended TN-facing paid play on 22 August 2025 along with the rest of the country. None of them resumed paid TN operations at any point thereafter, because the TN Act already independently prohibited online money games and PROGA simply confirmed the prohibition at the central level. The TN operator association made one attempt in March 2026 to lobby for a state-licensed e-sports framework that would sit alongside OGAI registration, but the state government declined. There is no political appetite in Chennai to soften the prohibition. The TN operator footprint in 2026 is limited to free-to-play products and OGAI-registered e-sports.
Karnataka position. The Karnataka picture is more complex because the 2024 amendment to the Police Act created real expectations among operators. Several Bengaluru-based platforms invested in compliance frameworks designed to operate under the state carve-out. PROGA cut across those frameworks because the 2024 carve-out applied to offline poker and rummy, not online. Junglee Games suspended online operations on 22 August 2025 but kept its Bengaluru office active for the offline poker arm. Adda52 retained two licensed offline poker rooms in Bengaluru under the 2024 framework. Online operations are gone. The Karnataka High Court challenge filed by Junglee Games in January 2026 is the most visible operator-side legal response and is testing the proportionality of the PROGA penalty regime under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g).
The difference between the two states is also visible in the political space. Tamil Nadu’s DMK government, which championed the 2022 and 2024 reenactment, sees PROGA as broadly consistent with state policy and has not joined any constitutional challenge. Karnataka’s Congress government has been more ambivalent. The state law minister gave a press statement in March 2026 acknowledging that the 2024 offline carve-out remains operative and indicating that the state government supports operator-side challenges to PROGA on proportionality grounds, but stopped short of joining the litigation as a party. This is consistent with the historical pattern where Karnataka has wanted to retain a state-level skill-game framework while not directly opposing central enforcement.
The Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, headquartered in Delhi and representing operators across both states, has taken a position that is consistent with the political middle. It has not joined the Tamil Nadu state government in defending the prohibition, but it has also not joined the Karnataka operators in challenging Section 6 penalties. The Federation’s preferred resolution is OGAI registration of e-sports and fantasy formats as permitted formats outside the Section 2(j) money-game definition. So far OGAI has registered 11 e-sports formats but no fantasy formats since the framework went live on 1 October 2025.
The employment-side impact differs between the two states. Tamil Nadu had a smaller gaming-industry employment footprint to begin with, roughly 2,400 jobs across Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai by mid 2025. Suspension cost most of those roles by Q4 2025, with around 500 redeployed to free-to-play product teams and the remainder absorbed by the broader Chennai tech sector. Karnataka had a much larger footprint, roughly 18,000 jobs across the Bengaluru gaming cluster, of which roughly 6,500 were directly tied to paid operations. Suspension cost around 4,800 jobs by Q1 2026, with significant redeployment into the OGAI-registered e-sports formats and into adjacent IT services. The Bengaluru gaming-job loss was widely reported in the local press in December 2025 and was a factor in the Karnataka government’s ambivalence on the constitutional challenge.
Operator strategy on the OGAI registration route also differs. Tamil Nadu operators have largely treated OGAI as a future option rather than a current priority, because the TN state government would not permit paid play even if OGAI registered a fantasy or rummy format. The TN Act’s own prohibition would continue to bite. Karnataka operators, by contrast, see OGAI registration as the practical path back to paid operations, because the Karnataka 2024 framework already classifies the underlying activities as games of skill at the state level. The Junglee Games e-sports rummy application pending with OGAI is the test case. If OGAI registers it, Karnataka operators would have a clean operating path; the Tamil Nadu market would remain closed even on the same registration unless the TN state government amends its 2022 Act.
NRI impact: do state lines still matter for non-resident players
For Indian residents the answer to most questions is now nationally uniform. PROGA applies wherever the player sits. For NRIs the picture is different because the question is no longer where the player is in India but where the player is in the world.
NRI living and playing in the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE, Canada or Australia. PROGA applies extraterritorially only via Section 7 against offshore operators using Indian payment rails. It does not directly bind a non-resident Indian playing on a locally-licensed operator in a country where the activity is legal. The host country’s law governs. The state line in India does not enter the analysis at all because the activity is outside India. If the NRI is using money sourced from an Indian bank account, the Liberalised Remittance Scheme 250,000 USD per year limit applies and FEMA reporting rules under Schedule III apply.
NRI playing offshore from abroad using an Indian bank account. The operator side may be caught by PROGA Section 7 if any rupee flow touches Indian banks. The Reserve Bank of India circular dated 28 April 2026 instructs banks to block UPI Virtual Payment Addresses and merchant codes associated with online money gaming. An NRI making remittances from India to a gaming site is potentially in FEMA territory under Schedule III which prohibits remittance for lottery tickets and certain prohibited or proscribed magazines, with gaming added by interpretation post-PROGA.
NRI playing from India while on a temporary visit. Resident status under FEMA depends on number of days. If the NRI becomes a tax resident under Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, PROGA applies fully because PROGA does not distinguish between citizens and residents on the player side; it is a supply-side law that catches the operator wherever the player is. The NRI playing on an offshore site from India is exposed to the same risk as any Indian resident.
State lines matter much less for NRI scenarios than for resident scenarios. The TN versus Karnataka difference that matters for an in-state resident operator becomes irrelevant for an NRI in Dubai because Tamil Nadu police have no extraterritorial reach. The relevant axis for NRIs is the host country’s law plus the FEMA / LRS implications plus the operator-side PROGA exposure. The Law Conflict Resolver widget at the top of this page covers NRI scenarios under the “NRI player (US, UK, GCC, etc.)” role option.
For the specific question of withdrawing pre-ban balances, the NRI route is exactly the same as the resident route until 30 June 2026 under the PROGA transitional rules. The operator must settle to the original bank account from which the deposit was made, which for many NRIs is an NRO or NRE account in India. The Section 194BA TDS deduction applies regardless of the player’s residency status because PROGA TDS provisions are operator-side.
NRI tax position deserves a separate sub-note because residency status drives the rate. An NRI under Section 6 of the Income-tax Act is taxed on Indian-sourced income only, which for gaming winnings means the operator-side TDS at 30 percent flat under Section 194BA is the final liability in most cases. A resident is taxed on worldwide income, which means winnings from foreign gaming sites accessed during a temporary visit abroad are also taxable in India. The double taxation avoidance agreements with the US, UK, UAE, Canada, Australia and Singapore have varying provisions on gaming winnings; most treat winnings as other income covered by Article 21 of the model treaty, which generally allocates taxing rights to the residence state. The practical advice for NRIs is to maintain clear records of country-of-play for each winning event, and to file the foreign tax credit claim under Section 90 or 91 where the host country also taxes the winning.
State-line analysis for NRIs becomes relevant only when the NRI is physically in India and joining contests. An NRI on a one-month visit to Chennai who joins a paid offshore contest from a Chennai hotel is exposed to Tamil Nadu Act Section 11 player-side liability identical to a resident TN player. The NRI status does not insulate. Conversely, an NRI in Bengaluru playing on a Karnataka-licensed offline poker room is fine because the Karnataka 2024 carve-out covers any participant regardless of residency. The state-line answer flips with physical location, not with residency.
Three case studies
Case study one: Junglee Games. The Bengaluru-headquartered Junglee Games operates RummyCircle, the largest Indian rummy platform by player count before August 2025. Junglee suspended paid contests on 22 August 2025 along with the rest of the industry. The Karnataka 2024 offline carve-out is irrelevant to the online rummy product because the carve-out applies to offline only. Junglee retained the Bengaluru office and refocused around three lines: a free-to-play rummy product launched 25 August 2025 with non-cashable coins, an OGAI registration application for “e-sports rummy” that is pending since November 2025, and the Karnataka High Court challenge filed January 2026 contesting the proportionality of PROGA Section 6 penalties. Junglee CEO has publicly stated that the company will not resume paid operations until either OGAI grants permitted-format status or the courts read down Section 5. The stuck-balance settlement programme for pre-22-August-2025 players has settled approximately 87 percent of claims as of 21 May 2026, with the remainder in the high-balance dispute queue.
Case study two: A Chennai-based player who played both rummy and fantasy before PROGA. The player held active balances on RummyCircle, Dream11, and MPL on 22 August 2025 totalling around 47,000 rupees across the three apps. Under the PROGA transitional rules and the contractual entitlement preserved by operator suspension notices, the player filed three withdrawal requests in October 2025. Dream11 settled in 17 days. MPL settled in 24 days after one resubmission. RummyCircle entered a dispute queue because of a 12,000 rupees balance flagged as having Section 115BBJ TDS short of the required amount. After escalation to the operator nodal officer and then to RBI Sachet portal, RummyCircle settled in March 2026 with the correct TDS amount deducted on the credit side. The player’s total tax filing for FY 2025-26 includes the gross winnings figure from each of the three operators reported on the ITR-2 Schedule OS winnings-from-online-games. State line did not matter at any point in this case; Tamil Nadu added nothing to the PROGA-side process.
Case study three: A small affiliate publisher in Bengaluru. The publisher operated a Hindi-language gaming review site with affiliate links to Dream11, MPL and three offshore casino brands until February 2026. The Dream11 and MPL affiliate links were terminated by the operators when they switched to free-to-play and stopped running affiliate programmes. The offshore casino links remained active. In March 2026 the publisher received an IT Rules 2021 takedown notice from MeitY citing PROGA Section 5 abetment. The publisher pulled the offshore links within the 24-hour window required by the notice. No criminal prosecution was initiated because the publisher complied with the takedown promptly and had no prior history of non-compliance. The publisher’s Karnataka location did not matter to the analysis because PROGA Section 5 operates with national reach and the IT Rules 2021 takedown mechanism is centrally administered. Had the publisher delayed compliance, prosecution under PROGA Section 5 with up to 3 years imprisonment was the realistic exposure.
25 frequently asked questions
Question 1. Does PROGA override the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling Act 2022. Answer: PROGA prevails over the TN Act on supply-side prohibition under Article 254 doctrine of repugnancy. The TN Act continues to operate on advertising standards, physical premises and on-ground enforcement. Both laws can apply cumulatively where they point the same way.
Question 2. Did the Karnataka 2024 offline poker and rummy carve-out survive PROGA. Answer: Yes, for offline only. The carve-out continues to protect licensed offline poker rooms in Bengaluru and elsewhere in Karnataka. It does not extend to online play, which is caught by PROGA Section 5 regardless of the state classification.
Question 3. What is Article 254 doctrine of repugnancy in one line. Answer: Where Parliament and a state legislature both pass laws on a Concurrent List subject and the laws conflict, the central law prevails and the state law is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Question 4. Why did some state acts get presidential assent. Answer: State laws on the Concurrent List that the state government wants to insulate from later central legislation can be reserved for and assented to by the President under Article 254 clause 2. This protects the state law against earlier central acts but not against later central acts.
Question 5. Does the presidential assent received by the TN Act 2022 protect it from PROGA. Answer: No. PROGA is the later central law in time. Article 254 clause 2 only protects state laws against earlier central laws. Parliament reoccupying the field with a new central act extinguishes the protective effect of the earlier presidential assent. This is the holding in M Karunanidhi v Union of India 1979.
Question 6. Can I still play paid online rummy in Karnataka after PROGA. Answer: No. The Karnataka 2024 carve-out applies to offline only. PROGA Section 5 prohibits the supply of online rummy as an online money game without any skill exemption. All Karnataka-based operators suspended paid online play on 22 August 2025.
Question 7. Is free-to-play Dream11 legal in Tamil Nadu. Answer: Yes. PROGA Section 2(j) requires a monetary stake to engage. TN Act Section 2(k) likewise requires betting for value. Neither catches FTP. Dream11 FTP is legal in all 28 states and 8 union territories.
Question 8. What happens if I am caught playing on an offshore site in Andhra Pradesh. Answer: AP is one of the states that historically prosecutes the player directly under state act. The AP Gaming Act 1974 with 2020 amendment imposes up to 1 month imprisonment plus 500 rupees fine on the player. Operator-side PROGA prosecution is the primary route but state-side player liability is real in AP, Telangana and Tamil Nadu.
Question 9. Does PROGA apply to the Goa physical casinos. Answer: No. PROGA is an online-only law. Goa Public Gambling Act 1976 governs the onshore and offshore casino licences in Goa. Casinos continue operating in May 2026 under the existing state framework.
Question 10. Does PROGA touch state lotteries. Answer: No. PROGA Section 2 explicitly carves lottery out of the online money game definition. State lotteries authorised under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998 continue without PROGA interference.
Question 11. Why is the operator penalty under PROGA larger than under state acts. Answer: Parliament set the PROGA penalty at up to 3 years imprisonment plus 1 crore rupees fine per offence to reflect the cross-state, cross-currency, larger-scale nature of online operations versus the historically more localised gambling-house offences under state acts. Prosecutors typically charge under PROGA where both bite.
Question 12. Is there double liability under PROGA and TN Act for the same offence. Answer: There can be. Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits punishment more than once for the same offence, but the doctrine of distinct offences allows separate prosecution under a state act and a central act if the elements of the two offences are different. PROGA Section 6 (supply of online money game) and TN Act Section 11 (operating an online gambling site) have different elements and have been treated as separate offences in early prosecutions.
Question 13. What is the Madras High Court hearing about specifically. Answer: All India Gaming Federation versus Union of India, filed October 2025, challenging the constitutional competence of Parliament to legislate on online gaming. Petitioners argue the subject is on List II Entry 34 (betting and gambling) and therefore a state subject. Union argues the cross-state internet supply pulls it into List III Entry 31 (communications). Bench reserved orders 9 May 2026. Judgment expected June or July 2026.
Question 14. Has the Supreme Court ruled on PROGA. Answer: No final ruling yet. The Supreme Court has a direct Article 32 petition pending and has tagged it for hearing together with the Madras and Karnataka HC outcomes. Listing schedule likely September 2026 if the HC judgments come out by July or August.
Question 15. Does my state matter if I am an NRI in Dubai playing on a Curacao operator. Answer: No. PROGA does not directly bind a non-resident playing on a locally-licensed offshore operator. The host country law governs. State line in India is irrelevant because the activity is outside India. FEMA and LRS rules apply on the money side if Indian banking is involved.
Question 16. Can my Indian bank account fund a foreign gaming site. Answer: Generally no. The RBI circular dated 28 April 2026 instructs banks to block UPI VPAs and merchant codes associated with online money gaming. Schedule III of FEMA prohibits remittance for lottery tickets and certain prohibited items, and gaming remittance is included by interpretation post-PROGA. LRS reporting rules apply on any cross-border transfer.
Question 17. What is the OGAI permitted formats list. Answer: The Online Gaming Authority of India, established under PROGA on 1 October 2025, maintains a list of registered permitted formats that are exempt from the Section 2(j) money-game definition. 11 e-sports formats are currently registered. No fantasy or rummy formats have been registered as of 21 May 2026.
Question 18. Does Section 194BA TDS still apply after the paid product is gone. Answer: Yes, for any winnings credited to a player on or before 22 August 2025 and any settlements of pre-ban balances. Operators must deduct TDS on the credit side of the settlement. The TDS amount is reflected in the player’s Form 26AS and is available for set-off against the final tax liability on the ITR-2 winnings schedule.
Question 19. Are there any states where I can still play paid online rummy. Answer: No. PROGA Section 5 applies uniformly across all 28 states and 8 union territories. There is no state-line workaround. Affiliate sites claiming otherwise are wrong.
Question 20. Is online poker still legal anywhere in India after PROGA. Answer: No, not online. Offline poker remains legal in Karnataka under the 2024 carve-out and in Goa and Sikkim under the casino-specific licensing regimes. Online poker is prohibited everywhere under PROGA Section 5.
Question 21. What is the Tamil Nadu government’s position on PROGA. Answer: Supportive in substance. The DMK government in Chennai sees PROGA as broadly consistent with the 2022 reenactment of the state prohibition. The state has not joined any constitutional challenge and has not lobbied for a state-level e-sports carve-out beyond OGAI.
Question 22. What is the Karnataka government’s position on PROGA. Answer: Ambivalent. The Congress government in Bengaluru supports operator-side challenges on proportionality grounds but has not joined the litigation directly. The 2024 offline carve-out for poker and rummy remains operative within the state.
Question 23. Can advertising of free-to-play Dream11 fall foul of PROGA surrogate-ad rules. Answer: Yes, in principle. PROGA Section 8 read with the MIB advisory dated 2 May 2026 treats brand-shared advertising as surrogate advertising for the underlying online money game. Dream11 and MPL have substantially scaled back brand-shared advertising since February 2026 to manage this risk. Penalty cap is up to 10 crore rupees per breach.
Question 24. Will Madras High Court strike down PROGA. Answer: The legal consensus at the bar is that PROGA will survive but specific provisions may be read down. The Section 8 advertising penalty cap of 10 crore rupees per breach is the provision most likely to face a proportionality challenge under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(a). The core supply-side prohibition in Section 5 is likely to be upheld.
Question 25. What happens to stuck balances if Madras HC strikes down PROGA in June 2026. Answer: Stuck balances are protected by contract law independently of PROGA. Operators must settle pre-22-August-2025 balances regardless of the constitutional fate of PROGA Section 5. The PROGA transitional rules dated 1 October 2025 simply formalised the settlement framework that already existed at common law. A PROGA strikedown would not entitle players to resume paid play retrospectively, but would allow operators to resume paid contests prospectively unless the Supreme Court grants an interim stay.
Final note and version tracking
This comparison is accurate as of 21 May 2026. We update the litigation tracker monthly on the 21st and the comparison table on any state-act amendment or High Court judgment. The next scheduled update is 21 June 2026, which will incorporate any judgment from the Madras High Court bench that reserved orders on 9 May 2026.
For the related deep dives on this site: the full PROGA Act 2025 explainer covers the central legislation in detail; the Dream11 legal status guide covers the leading paid fantasy brand; the Dream11 banned states matrix covers state-by-state legality even though paid Dream11 is uniformly unavailable; the rummy after PROGA analysis covers the rummy-specific impact; and the Teen Patti TDS and tax guide covers Section 194BA and Section 115BBJ tax filing for any prior or transitional winnings.
If you found a specific scenario the Law Conflict Resolver widget did not handle cleanly, write to the editorial team at the contact details in the author footer below. We add new scenarios to the widget on the 21st of each month.
Related coverage
- Operators based in Curacao or Malta serving Indian players face the offshore operator risk under PROGA Section 5.