The Government of Haryana recently vide its gazette notification dated May 21, 2025 has notified the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 (“Act”). This comes in the aftermath of growing regulatory challenges faced by the industry in other states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh where similar legislation is already in place. The Act aims to address contemporary gambling challenges by establishing a legal framework for preventing and punishing public gambling, operation of common gambling houses, betting in sports or elections, and match or spot fixing in sports within Haryana. This legislation represents a significant update to gambling regulations in the state, repealing the outdated Public Gambling Act of 1867 in the state of Haryana.
Key Provisions
(a) Games of Skill V/s Games of Chance
The Act distinguishes between “games of chance” (where chance predominates over skill) and “games of skill” (where skill predominates over chance) while drawing from well-established legal principles that have evolved through multiple judicial pronouncements, often by examining analogous laws in other states.
It encapsulates three fundamental tests used to distinguish between games of skill and games of chance. The first is the test of preponderance, which considers whether skill or chance plays the greater role in determining the outcome. The preponderance test originates from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, which has since been upheld in numerous subsequent rulings. It serves as a key standard for assessing whether a game is predominantly one of skill or governed by chance. While foundational to gaming jurisprudence, the ruling inherently allows for subjectivity requiring each game to be individually evaluated against the preponderance of skill test.
The second is the test of persistence of skill, which recognizes that skill can be honed and performance can improve with practice over time. The third is the skill gradient, which assesses the extent to which a player’s superior knowledge, training, and experience can influence the outcome of the game.
Collectively, these tests provide a nuanced and jurisprudentially supported framework for evaluating the nature of gaming activities. Notably, the State Government has also the authority to notify any game to be included as a game of skill.
(b) Non-monetary consideration
The Act defines “bet” as an agreement (whether oral, written, or otherwise) concerning the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event, wherein the party making an incorrect prediction is obligated to pay or forfeit a stipulated consideration whether monetary or non-monetary. Similarly, “gaming” is defined as a game of chance in which any or all losing participants are required to pay or forfeit some form of consideration, again monetary or non-monetary.
By encompassing non-monetary forms of consideration within the definition, for instance, in-game currency, reward points, or virtual digital assets, the Act has significantly expanded the implications for gaming companies operating free-to-play games and gamified platforms, where virtual assets or points are used as a medium of exchange or reward.
(c) Match-fixing
The Act distinguishes itself by being one of the few legislations in India to explicitly define and criminalize match-fixing and spot-fixing. The terms “match fixing” and “spot fixing” are addressed as deliberate acts aimed at manipulating the outcome of a sporting event or specific moments within it, undermining the integrity of fair play. Importantly, the Act takes a broad and inclusive approach by extending liability beyond just players. It covers any individual involved in the conduct or administration of a sporting event, including team officials, managers, coaches, physio-instructors, referees, umpires, ground staff, and others associated in any capacity with the organization of the game.
Penalty
| Offences | Penalty (First time offenders) | Penalty (Subsequent offenders) |
| Basic Gambling Offenses | Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or fine up to ₹10,000 | 1-3 years imprisonment and minimum fine of ₹10,000 |
| Operating Gambling Houses | 3-5 years imprisonment and fines up to ₹1 lakh. | – |
| Match Fixing and Spot Fixing | 3-5 years imprisonment and minimum fine of ₹5 lakh | 5-7 years imprisonment and minimum fine of ₹7 lakh |
| Organized Gambling Syndicates | 3-5 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5 lakh fine
| 5-7 years rigorous imprisonment and minimum ₹5 lakh fine |
| Identity Fraud | Up to 3 years imprisonment or ₹10,000 fine or both
| 3-5 years imprisonment and minimum ₹20,000 fine |
Implications for Stakeholders
The Act delivers a severe blow to fantasy sports and opinion trading platforms, many of which rely on contests or user predictions that may fall within the Act’s definition of “bet” and “gaming”. The impact of the Act is already seen with immediate halt of operations in the State of Haryana by online gaming platforms such SportsBaazi and MPL (with respect to opinion trading platform).
While fantasy sports have previously claimed protection under the “games of skill” doctrine, the lack of formal recognition or exemptions under this Act introduces substantial legal uncertainty. The inclusion of non-monetary consideration (such as digital assets or in-game currency) further expands the regulatory net, bringing even free-to-play models under scrutiny.
These uncertainties also impact investor confidence as early-stage and global investors often view regulatory ambiguity as a warning sign, where even a single restrictive order or delayed clarification can divert significant funding and shift innovation to regions with more stable policy frameworks.
Conclusion
The Act marks a comprehensive overhaul of gambling regulation in the state, replacing a colonial-era law with a framework to address modern form of gambling threats, including online betting, match-fixing, and digital gambling platforms. The Act establishes a robust enforcement regime backed by stringent penalties, empowering law enforcement to respond evolving gambling landscape.
However, the Act also introduces critical challenges, gaps and uncertainty, which will certainly hinder the gaming ecosystem in the state. The absence of specific recognition or exclusion for newer digital models, such as fantasy sports and opinion trading, creates a zone of uncertainty that exposes platforms to potential legal action, even where skill is a predominant element.
As it stands, the Act signals a strong intent to regulate, but leaves unresolved questions that will likely require further executive notification, judicial interpretation, or subsequent legislative action. Until such clarity emerges, companies, investors, and stakeholders in India’s online gaming and prediction economy will continue to navigate a high-risk and uncertain environment.
