India faces legal void in online betting, says Allahabad High Court

According to a report by Hindustan Times, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to establish a high-powered committee to assess the need for regulating online gaming and betting in the state.

Justice Vinod Diwaker issued the directive while hearing a case involving two individuals, including Imran Khan, accused of operating an illegal online betting operation from their home in Agra. The court noted that the existing Public Gambling Act of 1867, a colonial-era law, fails to address the complexities of modern digital gambling platforms.

The proposed committee will be chaired by Professor K. V. Raju, economic advisor to the state government. It is expected to include the principal secretary as member secretary and other experts drawn from relevant fields.

In its observations, the court emphasized that the current legal framework does not cover digital platforms, cross-border servers, or virtual gambling environments accessed via mobile devices and computers. It pointed out that the Act imposes minimal penalties, which do not deter large-scale online betting operations.

The court also raised concerns about the growing impact of online gaming on youth, citing its association with addiction, anxiety, depression, and deteriorating academic and social outcomes. It highlighted how many platforms use psychologically manipulative algorithms and reward systems to encourage prolonged engagement.

In addition, the court flagged potential threats to national security, noting that many online betting operations are hosted outside India's jurisdiction and operate through unregulated financial channels, posing risks of money laundering and terror financing.

Calling for urgent reform, the court stated that a new, technology-sensitive law is necessary to effectively address the legal, psychological, and socio-economic challenges posed by online gaming and betting.

Although the court quashed the proceedings against the two accused on the grounds that the case involved a non-cognisable offence that police could not investigate without a magistrate’s order, it granted law enforcement the liberty to initiate a fresh investigation in accordance with the law.