Socio – Legal Implications Of “DIGITAL ADDICTION” As a Public Health Issue | Volume VI Issue I | Author : Khushboo Mishra & Co-author : Nikita Nayak |

Key focuses have been highlighted.

IV.            SOCIAL IMPACT

Digital addiction characterised by compulsive, uncontrolled, and excessive use of digital technologies has evolved into one of the most complex public health and societal concerns of

the 21st century. Its social impact extends far beyond individual behavioural patterns and increasingly affects public health systems, youth development, workplace productivity, social relationships, and emerging legal frameworks. As technology becomes more deeply embedded in everyday life, the social consequences of digital addiction demand urgent attention from policymakers, healthcare providers, educators, and legal institutions.⁹

A.    Youth Development and Educational Outcomes

The social impact of digital addiction is particularly pronounced among adolescents and young adults a demographic more vulnerable to impulsivity, peer pressure, algorithmic influence, and identity formation challenges. Excessive digital exposure interferes with crucial stages of emotional, cognitive, and social development. Young users often report impaired attention spans, reduced capacity for sustained focus, and difficulties in managing emotions without digital stimulation

Moreover, compulsive use of social platforms can distort self-perception, increase social comparison, and reduce self-esteem. Cyberbullying, exposure to harmful online content, and addictive gaming environments compound the developmental risks. At the academic level, students with high digital dependency experience falling grades, reduced class participation, and chronic procrastination, ultimately affecting long-term educational attainment. The broader social impact lies in shaping a generation whose social skills such as empathy, conflict resolution, and interpersonal communication are increasingly mediated by screens rather than real-world interactions. This shift raises concerns about future workforce readiness and civic engagement.

B.      Economic Productivity and Workforce Consequences

Digital addiction has measurable consequences for national economies and workplace efficiency. The modern workplace relies heavily on digital tools, but the same tools also enable constant distractions. Notifications, social media, and online entertainment significantly reduce focus and contribute to productivity losses across industries.¹⁰

Employees who struggle with digital dependency show higher rates of absenteeism, presenteeism, task avoidance, and reduced work quality. In more severe cases, digital addiction leads to chronic underperformance, inability to meet deadlines, and even job loss. As remote and hybrid work structures expand, the boundary between personal and professional online use becomes increasingly porous, further heightening the economic impact.

For employers, the social impact is twofold: loss of productivity and a growing need for digital wellness programmes, monitoring systems, and organisational policies that address compulsive digital behaviour.

C.      Legal and Ethical Challenges

The rise of digital addiction has forced legal systems to confront unprecedented questions regarding responsibility, liability, and public protection. Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinising the role of technology companies in designing platforms that deliberately exploit psychological vulnerabilities through persuasive architecture, infinite scroll features, and algorithmic reinforcement.

The social impact of these legal developments is significant. Lawsuits and proposed legislation aim to regulate addictive design practices, mandate transparency in algorithms, and protect minors from harmful content. In certain jurisdictions, courts and policymakers are discussing whether digital addiction should be recognised similarly to other behavioural disorders, creating potential pathways for treatment within criminal justice and rehabilitation systems.¹¹

Additionally, the concept of “digital harm” a form of non-chemical but psychologically potent harm challenges traditional jurisprudence. Legal scholars are now debating whether excessive digital manipulation should fall within consumer protection laws, mental health regulations, or criminal statutes. These debates highlight the importance of adapting legal frameworks to a digital society where addictive behaviours can be engineered at scale.

D.      Social Interaction and Community Cohesion

At the most fundamental level, the social impact of digital addiction is seen in everyday interactions. The overuse of digital devices has reshaped communication norms, reducing the depth and quality of face-to-face social engagement. Family members often coexist physically but remain disconnected emotionally due to compulsive online involvement. Friendships become increasingly superficial as online presence replaces authentic connection.

Constant connectivity has also altered societal expectations. People feel obligated to respond instantly to messages, remain online for social validation, and maintain curated digital identities. This shift contributes to rising levels of social anxiety, fear of missing out (FOMO), and reduced privacy boundaries.

Community cohesion weakens when individuals prioritise digital worlds over local relationships, civic participation, and shared public life. The cumulative social impact is a more isolated, fragmented society.

V. INDIA’S VIEW AND PERSPECTIVE ON DIGITAL ADDICTION

In India, mental health concerns related to excessive social media use have become a growing public health challenge, particularly among adolescents and young adults. According to the National Mental Health Survey conducted by NIMHANS, nearly 10% of India’s population suffers from some form of mental health disorder, and the rising exposure to digital platforms is increasingly viewed as a contributing factor to this growing burden¹². Recent findings by the Indira Gandhi National Open University and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences indicate that problematic social media use is strongly associated with anxiety, low self-esteem, cyber- victimization, and sleep dysfunction among Indian youth¹³. Several Indian studies have also demonstrated a significant correlation between heavy screen time and depressive symptoms, especially among school and college students¹⁴.

Recognizing the urgency of the problem, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare have emphasized the need for responsible digital consumption and increased digital well-being measures. In 2023, the Government of India urged social media platforms to implement stronger safety mechanisms, warning that unchecked algorithmic amplification and harmful content can severely impact young users’ psychological health¹⁵. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has also issued multiple advisories highlighting that excessive screen exposure, online toxicity, and addictive platform design pose significant risks to children’s cognitive and emotional development¹⁶. India’s Draft National Health Policy also underscores the importance of public awareness campaigns and early interventions addressing digital overuse.¹⁷

Parents and educators also play a crucial role in shaping safe digital behavior. Indian researchers have consistently found that parental monitoring and guided online engagement significantly reduce risks of compulsive social media use and associated mental health problems among adolescents (Gupta & Sharma, 2020). Meanwhile, Indian psychological associations such as the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) have issued guidance recommending balanced screen-time practices, discouraging late-night device use, and encouraging non- digital recreational activities (IPS, 2021). As India continues to digitize rapidly, addressing digital addiction requires collaborative action across government, schools, families, mental health institutions, and technology platforms to safeguard the emotional well-being of future generations.

VI. LEGISLATIVE JOURNEY

A.    Telangana Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2017¹⁸

The Telangana Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2017 marked the first major state-level attempt in India to completely prohibit online real-money gaming. Telangana amended its older Gaming Act, 1974, to widen the definition of gambling and include all forms of online games played for money or stakes. This amendment removed the traditional legal distinction between “ games of skill” and “games of chance,” meaning that even games like online rummy and poker previously accepted as skill-based were brought under the category of banned activities. The law criminalised not only participation but also promotion, facilitation and operation of online gaming platforms offering monetary rewards. The objective was to address rising addiction, financial losses and social issues linked to online gambling. As a result of this amendment, Telangana became the strictest state in India regarding online gaming, enforcing absolute prohibition and giving police strong powers to arrest offenders and block platforms operating within the state.

B.    Andhra Pradesh Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2020¹⁹

The Andhra Pradesh Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2020 followed Telangana’s model by imposing a complete ban on all online games played for money, including both games of chance and games of skill. The state justified the amendment by citing increasing cases of youth addictions, suicides, family disputes and financial mismanagement caused by real-money gaming apps. The amended law made participation, operation or advertisement of any online money game a punishable offence, with strict penalties such as imprisonment and heavy fines. By removing the skill-versus-chance distinction, the Act classified all real-money gaming activities under gambling. The state government also requested the Central Government to assist in blocking illegal gaming websites under the IT Act. This amendment significantly impacted the online gaming industry, as Andhra Pradesh emerged as another state adopting a zero-tolerance approach similar to its neighbour Telangana.

C.    KARNATAKA Police (Amendment) Act, 2021²⁰

The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 attempted to ban all online games involving money by modifying the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The amendment prohibited wagering, betting and participation in online games played for stakes, and—similar to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh it removed the legal separation between games of skill and games of chance. However, this amendment faced immediate backlash because Karnataka hosts a major share of India’s online gaming industry. Multiple gaming companies filed petitions arguing that games of skill cannot be banned, as the Supreme Court has previously held that skill-based games are protected under the right to trade and profession. In February 2022, the Karnataka High Court struck down the entire amendment, declaring it unconstitutional for being overly broad and violative of fundamental rights. As a result, Karnataka’s ban on online skill-based money games was invalidated, restoring legal protection to games of skill while still allowing regulation of gambling activities.

D. Odisha and Assam Gambling Laws (Based on Public Gambling Act, 1867)²¹

Both Odisha and Assam rely on older gambling laws modeled on the Public Gambling Act, 1867, which naturally impose broad restrictions on gaming activities. Odisha is one of the strictest states because it does not recognise any distinction between games of skill and games of chance, meaning all kinds of real-money gaming are treated as illegal gambling. Assam follows a similar approach, where most online money games fall under prohibitive clauses unless specifically licensed. These states do not have modern laws addressing online platforms, but by interpreting older legislation broadly, they have effectively created an environment where most online betting and real-money games are considered illegal. The absence of updated regulatory frameworks contributes to ambiguity, but enforcement remains strict against operators and players alike.²²

E.    Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025²³

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is India’s first comprehensive central legislation designed to create a uniform national framework for online gaming. This Act imposes a nationwide ban on all online real-money games, whether based on skill or chance, including fantasy sports, poker, rummy and other stake-based platforms. By defining “online money games” broadly, the Act seeks to protect users from financial harm, addiction and fraudulent practices. At the same time, it actively promotes e-sports, safe social games and educational digital games. The law establishes the National Online Gaming Commission (NOGC) to license permissible games, regulate the industry and block illegal or offshore platforms under Section 69A of the IT Act. Violations attract severe penalties, including imprisonment up to three years and fines up to ₹1 crore. Although the Act is currently under constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court—because betting and gambling fall under the State List it remains a landmark law aiming to replace fragmented state rules with a single, nationwide regulatory structure.

F.     Public Gambling Act, 1867

The Public Gambling Act, 1867 was India’s earliest central legislation on gambling, enacted during British rule, long before the internet era. It primarily targeted physical “common gaming houses” and provided penalties for running or visiting such establishments. The Act explicitly excluded “games of mere skill” from the definition of gambling, creating the legal foundation for treating games like rummy or chess as lawful activities. Since gambling is a State Subject under the Constitution, the 1867 Act applied only to states that adopted it, leading to major variations across India. Importantly, the Act did not address online gaming, technology platforms or digital transactions, which later caused confusion as the online gaming sector expanded. Its outdated nature and limited scope eventually pushed both states and the central government to introduce new laws, ultimately contributing to the enactment of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.²⁴

JUDICIAL JOURNEY

Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged the psychological risks of uncontrolled digital consumption. The Kerala High Court, for example, in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, held that responsible digital use and digital literacy are essential rights linked to education and mental well-being. At the policy level, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has recommended that colleges provide counseling, regulate device use during academic hours, and promote digital hygiene among student. Mental health professionals across India emphasize the integration of digital literacy and healthy screen-use habits in counseling programs, urging students to limit exposure, prioritize offline routines, and seek early help for symptoms of digital dependency (Rao, 2022).

VII.            COMPARATIVE LEGALAPPROACHES TO DIGITALADDICTION: CHINA, UNITED STATES, AND INDIA

Different jurisdictions respond to digital addiction through vastly different regulatory philosophies. While some countries rely on strong state intervention to restrict screen time, others prioritise individual autonomy, public health warnings, or platform accountability. A comparative study of China, the United States, and India demonstrates three distinct models of regulation, each reflecting wider socio-political traditions and legal cultures.

A.    CHINA

China adopts one of the world’s most prescriptive and state-driven approaches to digital addiction, particularly with respect to minors. Its legislative and policy framework treats digital addiction as a matter of public order and national well-being, warranting strict behavioural controls. Central to China’s strategy is the system of compulsory gaming restrictions, implemented through administrative guidelines issued by the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA). These regulations limit minors to playing online games only during designated one-hour windows on weekends and public holidays. The restrictions are enforced through legally mandated real-name verification systems, which require all users to register with government-linked identity documents. Combined with age-focused spending caps and platform-level obligations to develop “anti-addiction systems,” China’s legislative environment places the burden of prevention not only on families but also on the companies designing and operating digital platforms.

China’s legal system does not rely heavily on judicial oversight for digital addiction. Instead, courts tend to reinforce the regulatory regime already established by administrative bodies. Recent cases involving Tencent and other gaming platforms illustrate this trend: courts consistently uphold the requirement that platforms must identify minors, enforce time limits, and issue refunds for unauthorised in-game purchases by children. Chinese courts frame these obligations as part of the broader duty of platforms to protect minors under the Minor Protection Law, thereby aligning judicial outcomes with the government’s policy objectives. The overall system reflects a philosophy in which state supervision and platform compliance take precedence over individual autonomy, offering one of the most tightly controlled models globally.

B.    UNITED STATES

The United States adopts a markedly different approach. Instead of a centralised legislative scheme, the American model is characterised by public health framing, state-level regulation, and extensive litigation. Federal policy has largely emerged through advisory documents rather than statutory restrictions. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisories on the impact of social media on youth mental health represent the most visible nationwide intervention. These advisories warn of the risks of addictive design features, propose the possibility of warning labels akin to cigarette boxes, and encourage families, schools, and policymakers to take precautionary measures. However, they lack binding legal force, reflecting the U.S. preference for informational guidance rather than government-imposed behavioural limits.

In the absence of federal legislation, regulatory efforts have increasingly shifted to individual states. Laws in Utah, Arkansas, and Texas impose parental-consent requirements for minors’ social media use, and several states have introduced bills targeting algorithmic feeds, autoplay functions, and other features associated with digital addiction. Simultaneously, litigation has become one of the most influential tools in shaping accountability. Multiple state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits against Meta, TikTok, and other companies, accusing them of designing platforms with addictive qualities that harm children’s mental health. These cases rely on consumer protection laws, negligence theories, and allegations of deceptive practices.

Judicial developments have been especially important in defining the legal contours of platform responsibility. A landmark case, Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (2021), held that platforms may be liable for negligent design when product features foreseeably encourage dangerous behaviour. Courts across the country are now applying similar reasoning to evaluate claims that social media companies intentionally employ addictive design mechanisms. Because U.S. courts play an active role in policy development, the legal approach to digital addiction is shaped more by judicial interpretation and litigation pressure than by comprehensive legislation.

C.    INDIA

India’s approach lies somewhere between China’s regulatory model and the United States’ public health-oriented strategy, but it is less developed in direct relation to digital addiction. India does not have a dedicated statute addressing excessive use of digital devices. Instead, the regulatory environment emerges indirectly through the Information Technology Act, 2000, the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and mental health frameworks. Under the 2021 Rules, digital platforms must exercise due diligence to prevent harm to users, provide grievance redress mechanisms, and implement age-appropriate access controls. While these guidelines do not explicitly refer to “addictive design” or compulsive use, they form the basis for potential regulatory intervention by holding intermediaries responsible for user harm.

At the policy level, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 recognises behavioural health disorders and supports treatment infrastructures that could encompass digital addiction. Several Indian states have independently taken steps to address the problem: Kerala, for example, has established digital de-addiction clinics and educational programmes aimed at schools. The National Education Policy (2020) also acknowledges concerns around excessive screen use among children and encourages digital wellness practices.

Judicial responses in India have also contributed to shaping the discourse. The Kerala High Court’s decision in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) recognised the right to access the internet as a part of Article 21, placing emphasis on the need for balanced, reasonable restrictions rather than bans. Courts in multiple states have heard petitions concerning online gaming addiction and the psychological harms associated with gameplay, noting the need for regulatory oversight. However, Indian courts have not yet articulated a comprehensive doctrine on digital addiction, nor have they imposed affirmative duties on platforms comparable to those being litigated in the United States.

D.    COMPARATIVE REFLECTION

The contrast among these three jurisdictions reveals three distinct legal philosophies. China prioritises control and compulsory compliance, treating digital addiction as a social risk requiring direct state intervention. The United States emphasises individual liberty and relies heavily on judicial action and consumer protection litigation to address harmful design practices. India takes a gradual, welfare-oriented approach, addressing digital addiction indirectly through existing IT and mental health laws, while its judiciary promotes a rights- based framework emphasising balance rather than restriction.

Together, these approaches highlight the complex challenge of regulating digital addiction in a globalised technological environment. Each jurisdiction’s response reflects deeper societal values: China’s collectivism and regulatory centrality, the U.S.’s autonomy-driven and litigation-led model, and India’s welfare-based but evolving regulatory landscape.

VIII.             PUBLIC HEALTH AND DIGITAL ADDICTION

The most pressing social impact of digital addiction is its burden on public health infrastructure. A large body of research consistently links problematic digital engagement with significant mental health consequences across age groups. Individuals with high levels of smartphone, internet, gaming, or social media dependence often experience elevated symptoms of anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, sleep disturbances, and chronic loneliness . These psychological effects, once isolated to smaller subgroups, have now become widespread, prompting public health agencies to recognise digital addiction as an emerging behavioural health challenge.

Sleep disruption often caused by late-night screen exposure and compulsive nighttime scrolling directly affects cognitive functioning, emotional stability, and overall well-being. In populations with heavy smartphone dependence, clinicians report increased cases of stress disorders and mood fluctuations, further contributing to the social burden on mental health services. As demand for psychological support rises, public health systems face growing pressure to develop specialised screening tools, therapeutic interventions, and community-based support models specifically focused on digital addiction.

Beyond mental health, digital addiction contributes to physical health complications. Excessive screen time promotes sedentary behaviour, increasing the risk of obesity, musculoskeletal disorders, headaches, and visual strain. Cumulatively, these outcomes impose significant long-term costs on healthcare systems, making digital addiction a multi-dimensional public health priority.

XI. SUGGESTIONS
A. Legal Recognition of Digital Addiction

Digital addiction should be formally acknowledged within India’s mental-health and public- health frameworks. Although Gaming Disorder is recognized under ICD-11, India requires a more comprehensive legal classification that includes excessive use of social media, online streaming, gambling, and compulsive smartphone behaviour. A statutory definition would provide clarity for healthcare institutions, courts, and policymakers.

B. Regulation of Addictive Platform Design

Technology companies must be made accountable for design features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, hyper-personalized algorithms, and aggressive notifications. India may consider adopting regulatory models similar to the EU’s Digital Services Act, requiring transparency in algorithmic processes, age-sensitive design, and restrictions on features proven to induce compulsive behaviour.

C. Public Health Interventions and National Digital Wellness Policy

India should establish a National Digital Wellness Programme under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, focusing on early identification, screening tools at schools and colleges, community counselling centres, and affordable therapy services. State governments should integrate digital-addiction modules into existing mental-health programs at district levels.

D. Digital Literacy and Safe-Use Education in Schools and Universities

Educational institutions should adopt structured curriculums on digital hygiene, cyber-well- being, and responsible technology use. Mandatory workshops on time-management, self- regulation, and digital citizenship can build healthier screen practices among adolescents and young adults.

E. Parental Guidance and Community Engagement

Parents must receive training through school outreach programmes to monitor online activities, set healthy boundaries, and model responsible device behaviour. Community-level awareness campaigns involving NGOs, child psychologists, and local health authorities can build support ecosystems for early intervention.

F. Workplace Digital Wellness Frameworks

Employers should implement digital detox policies, enforce device-free meeting hours, and offer employee assistance programmes addressing compulsive digital use. Corporate digital- wellness guidelines can reduce productivity loss and support a healthier work environment.

G. Strengthening Research and Data Collection

There is a need for large-scale multidisciplinary research on prevalence, risk factors, and socio- legal implications of digital addiction in India. The government should collaborate with NIMHANS, AIIMS, IGNOU, and other research bodies to generate reliable data for evidence- based policymaking.

H. Judicial Sensitization and Clarity in Liability

Courts should receive training on digital behaviour disorders to better evaluate cases involving cyber-bullying, online harm, and excessive gaming. Legislative clarity is also needed on whether platforms may be held liable for intentionally addictive features, especially when minors are affected.

X. CONCLUSION

Digital addiction has emerged as a complex socio-legal and public-health challenge that transcends individual behaviour and intersects with technology design, mental health, education, economics, and law. As India continues to experience rapid digital expansion, the risks associated with compulsive digital use have grown more visible, especially among adolescents and young adults. Psychological impacts such as anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and reduced cognitive functioning now place a measurable burden on public health systems. At the societal level, digital overuse erodes interpersonal relationships, disrupts workplace productivity, and contributes to weaker community cohesion.

Legally, India is still at a developmental stage in recognizing and responding to digital addiction. While courts like the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin have highlighted the importance of responsible digital use, legislative frameworks remain inadequate to address platform-driven addictive design, algorithmic manipulation, and the growing vulnerabilities of young users. Comparative models from countries like China and the United States show that regulatory intervention, combined with public health strategies, can significantly mitigate harm.

Therefore, digital addiction must no longer be viewed solely as a personal failing but as a public health issue that demands coordinated legal, educational, and policy-based action. A holistic approach integrating government agencies, mental-health professionals, educators, parents, and technology companies is essential for building a safer and healthier digital ecosystem. As India advances toward a more technologically integrated future, addressing digital addiction proactively will be crucial in safeguarding psychological well-being, promoting responsible innovation, and ensuring that digital progress does not compromise human development.

¹ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

² World Health Organization (2019). ICD-11: International Classification of Diseases.

 

³ Kimberly S. Young, Internet Addiction: The Emergence of a New Clinical Disorder, 1 CyberPsychology & Behavior 237 (1998).

⁴ Mark D. Griffiths, Internet Addiction: Fact or Fiction, 1 Psychology and the Internet 61 (1999).

⁵ Richard A. Davis, A Cognitive–Behavioural Model of Pathological Internet Use, 8 Computers in Human Behaviour 327 (2001).

⁶ Jerald J. Block, Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction, 165 American Journal of Psychiatry 306 (2008).

⁷ Daria J. Kuss & Mark D. Griffiths, Internet Addiction: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Research for the Last Decade, 10 International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 329 (2011).

⁸ World Health Organization, International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics

9 Andreassen Social Media Addiction Andreassen, Cecilie Schou, Online Social Network Site Addiction: A Comprehensive Review, 11 Current Addiction Reports 1 (2015).

¹⁰ Alter Compulsive Tech Use Alter, Adam, Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked (Penguin Press 2017).

¹¹ U.S. Surgeon General Advisory – Youth Mental Health & Social Media Office of the Surgeon General, Social Media and Youth Mental Health: Advisory (2023).

¹² National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), National Mental Health Survey of India 2015–16 (2016).

¹³ Venkatesh, V., Gupta, R. & Ajith, T., Problematic Social Media Use among Indian Youth, AIIMS & IGNOU Study (2019).

¹⁴ Kaur, S. & Keshni, R., “Social Media Use and Depression Among Indian Adolescents,” Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing (2021).

¹⁵ Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Advisory on Safe Use of Social Media Platforms (2023).

¹⁶ National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), Guidelines on Digital Safety for Children (2022).

¹⁷ Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Draft National Health Policy (2020).

18 Telangana Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2017, Act No. 28 of 2017 (Telangana).

19 Andhra Pradesh Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2020, Act No. 27 of 2020 (Andhra Pradesh).

20 Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, Act No. 28 of 2021 (Karnataka).Challenged and struck down in: All India Gaming Federation v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 18703/2021, Karnataka High Court (Feb. 2022).

21 Orissa Prevention of Gambling Act, 1955, Orissa Act 17 of 1955.:

22 Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970, Assam Act No. VII of 1970.

23 Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, No. of 2025 (India).

24 Public Gambling Act, 1867, Act No. 3 of 1867 (India).