Abstract
The recent Act on Online Gaming passed by both houses of the Parliament has banned real-money online games in India, which will include rummy, fantasy sports, and poker, irrespective of these games being games of skill. The justifications presented behind the law were public morality, the addictive nature of the games, and financial protection of the citizens of India. Though justification has been presented, the ban reflects hard paternalism, where the individual’s choice has been undermined and substituted by the judgment of the state. This article analyses the recently passed Act banning all real-money online games, criticizing the paternalistic stance by the state drawing an analogy with the attack on the decisional autonomy of women in reproductive matters. Though the comparison seems unconventional, in both contexts the intervention of the state strikes the individual autonomy of private decision-making. It raises significant questions about the liberty of the individuals. The reference to decisional autonomy of women in reproductive matters serves as a jurisprudential parallel in determining to what extent can the state in the name of protecting the interests of the people, regulate personal choices. The article suggests a more balanced model of governance that respects individual autonomy.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.