Reference files:
– Bihar Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2026 — [ PDF ]
– Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROG Act): Act [PDF] | Rules [PDF]
Bihar has become the first state to notify a fresh anti-gambling law after the Centre’s Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act came into effect, creating a direct overlap where both laws apply, but the Centre claims overriding authority. The Bihar Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2026, notified on August 13, repeals the 159-year-old Public Gambling Act and bans all gambling, both offline and online, without exempting games of skill.
In this context, while the constitutional challenge to PROGA is still before the Supreme Court of India, MediaNama spoke to technology and gaming lawyer Jay Sayta. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
How does the Centre-state conflict play out in anti-gambling laws? “For example, compare the Central Act with the Chhattisgarh Act, or the Haryana Act, or the Nagaland Act. States like Haryana and Chhattisgarh explicitly protect games of skill. Haryana even allows notifications to list permitted games, while Chhattisgarh directly exempts them. Nagaland, however, focuses on licensing. This creates a direct conflict with the Central Act.”
“Some of these have a carve-out for skill-based games. Let me put it that way. Nagaland has a complete law for regulating skill-based online games only. And Haryana and Chhattisgarh have a carve-out for online skill-based games, for skill-based games in general, which includes… Their act includes both online and offline.
“However, those were all predating PROGA,” he highlighted.
“This is also affirmed by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Junglee Games that it’s a state subject. And there may not be a conflict, in that sense, between the two laws. Both are trying to prohibit, but it is an overlap. And when there is an overlap, the law is that you go with the pith and substance. And the pith and substance is gambling and betting. So that falls within the state list .” – Jay Sayta.
How does the US approach gaming and gambling regulation? “Look at Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), the federal legislation in the US, it governs interstate or international transactions. If a state wants to permit online gaming, it can. States like Delaware, New Jersey, and Nevada have their own laws and even interstate compacts. This is already happening. The federal law steps in only when transactions cross state or international borders, like offshore sites targeting US players.
“The same [US] approach can work under PROGA. Let states regulate intrastate gaming, while PROGA handles cross-border and international cases.”
What can India do for State-level regulations? “You can geo-fence, or you can take it only from those particular IPs of that particular state. You can definitely geo-fence it to one state. Along with that, KYC has to go hand-in-hand. Both layers of verification have to be there.”
Shouldn’t the Bihar Act distinguish between games of skill and games of chance? “That is irrelevant now in light of the Junglee Games judgment. Having said that, review petitions have been filed against the Junglee Games judgment which are pending in the Supreme Court. It is my view that the decision in Junglee Games ought to be reconsidered, and hopefully the decision will be reviewed or reconsidered by a larger bench in future. But as of today, the ratio of Junglee Games is the law of the land and the judgment has said gambling and betting, both online and offline (including skill-based games) is a state subject. . So, as per the Supreme Court, if states want to ban all games played with money under a gambling ban, they can. If they want to carve out skill games or certain games, they can carve out. So that is what the judgment says. Bihar has taken this call: ‘We will call all this gambling, in accordance with the judgment, and we do not want to carve out anything.’ But tomorrow, if a state wants to allow either some skill-based games or gambling/betting in general, it should have the power to allow. ”
What is the significance of the difference between the Hindi and English versions of the Act? “In the English version of Section 17, it says ‘any state law,’ while in the Hindi version, it says ‘any law.’ So the word ‘state’ is only in the English version. As per the Bihar Official Language Act, 1950 and judicial rulings, the Hindi text holds primacy over the English translation in case of ambiguity. ”
Under Article 348 of the Indian Constitution, states can enact laws in Hindi or another language, but the English translation in the Official Gazette is the authoritative version in English. Section 6 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, only applies to states where Hindi is not the official language. In those states, the Governor can publish a Hindi translation, which then becomes the authoritative Hindi text. Hindi-speaking states do not need Section 6 because their laws are already enacted in Hindi. Under Section 5, if the Central Government publishes a Hindi translation of a Central Act, that Hindi version is the authoritative text in Hindi. However, in cases of conflict between the two versions, the Supreme Court and most High Courts have consistently ruled that the English text prevails. Some of the cases are: one | two | three | four
Why does the Bihar Act contain a rebuttable presumption against the accused? “There are many laws where this is reversed, including the old Gambling Act or Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) or Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). There is a presumption that you were found there for the purpose of gambling. It is a rebuttable presumption that can be challenged during trial”
“The rationale here is these are special acts where they are trying to curtail a special mischief in society. So they have certain special provisions which will help society.”
Why doesn’t Bihar require a regulatory authority, like OGAI? “Because it does not even choose to regulate money games. Tomorrow, if they want to, then, of course, you need a regulator.”
“Traditionally, all gambling acts fall under the Home Department because it is a prohibition approach. So the Home Department, and by that extension the police, is given the powers for banning. When you have to curtail something, stop something, prohibit something, and when it is punitive in nature, criminal in nature, the department that comes in is the police.”
What should be the Centre’s role in this? “The Centre’s role should be to legislate for Union Territories and for interstate or international offshore transactions, areas where only the Union has authority. PROGA can be limited to these two domains, covering only unregulated interstate transactions, such as banking activities not authorized by any state. That’s the Union’s sole responsibility: nothing more.”
Who should be liable for prohibited financial transactions: payment aggregators or individuals? “Both should be liable. Platforms and banks must not authorize these transactions. That’s non-negotiable. Those voluntarily providing or using bank accounts for this purpose should also be liable, and PROGA already covers this: anyone facilitating financial transactions or fund authorization, whether they engage in, permit, aid, abet, or induce it, is included. But this targets the issue more directly because, for banks and payment aggregators, the RBI and state may face jurisdictional or enforcement challenges. That’s why the state has taken this step.”
“I think the intent over here [Bihar Act] is more to do with mule accounts, whoever makes his bank account available. So it is more to do with any person opening bank accounts for that activity.”
Should there be a distinction between skill and chance-based gaming? “I believe skill games have to be separate and should be outside this gambling, just like it was. But right or wrong, there is a judgment which is before us (which of course is subject to review or reconsideration by a larger bench, including the Supreme Court bench that will be deciding the constitutional validity of PROGA). So, in accordance with the judgment, there is nothing wrong in what they have done. But my personal view is that this prohibition approach doesn’t work. And number two, this complete prohibition, by this logic, even a chess or golf tournament or other tournaments come under the purview of the Act and is prohibited. So definitely this is a broad sweep to the border of absurdity. ”
Also read:
