Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emerging from the shadows: The evolving legal treatment of fantasy sports in India

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With India emerging as one of the largest fantasy sports markets in the world, this article examines the legal environment that the sector has had to navigate along the way. It proceeds to describe the decisions and developments that have brought both clarity and new challenges to the industry.

The article also examines the regulatory prospects for the industry. These include a variety of new laws introduced by various State governments, continuing judicial scrutiny and the industry’s own initiatives to self-regulate.

With fantasy sports and paid games of skill having moved from the fringes to the mainstream of the Indian technology sector, this article takes the reader through the historical and emerging legal landscape that governs them. While showing how the industry has been shaped by law and regulation, it lays out the path ahead and suggests measures that can enable healthy innovation and provide the industry with an identity of its own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Chandran S., Has fantasy sports league got the direction right in India?, Mint, 16 June 2018 https://www.livemint.com/Sports/99Re8xEgpHHCDNDAn75ZLN/Has-fantasy-sports-league-got-the-direction-right-in-India.html. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  2. Ibid.

  3. James N., Dream11 is a proud homegrown brand, says Harsh Jain, The Hindu, 19 August 2020 https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/sports/dream11-is-a-proud-homegrown-brand-says-harish-jain/article32396741.ece. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  4. Lavalette T., The Billion-Dollar Indian Premier League Has Americanized Cricket, 14 April 2019 https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2019/04/14/the-billion-dollar-indian-premier-league-has-americanized-cricket/?sh=78ad5da0702d. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  5. James N., Dream11 is a proud homegrown brand, says Harsh Jain, The Hindu, 19 August 2020 https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/sports/dream11-is-a-proud-homegrown-brand-says-harish-jain/article32396741.ece. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  6. Kola V., “We want to make sports more personal than it already is” — Harsh Jain, The Perch, 26 September 2018 https://blog.kstart.in/we-want-to-make-sports-more-personal-than-it-already-is-harsh-jain-75758c64374f. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  7. Ibid.

  8. KPMG (2019), pp. 2.

  9. Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (2020), pp. 6.

  10. Ibid., pp. 7.

  11. Ibid., pp. 50.

  12. Parkin B. and Findlay S., India’s fantasy sports start-ups bat for glory during new cricket season, Financial Times, 26 September 2020 https://www.ft.com/content/f210393b-46b2-4449-b7c6-212d0d1e8b83. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  13. FIFS (2020), pp. 16.

  14. The Constitution of India, Schedule VII.

  15. Ibid., Schedule VII, List II (State List), Entries 33-34.

  16. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, 31 U.S.C. §5362(E)(ix)(I)-(III).

  17. Ibid., Article 13.

  18. The Public Gambling Act of 1867, s. 4.

  19. The Public Gambling Act of 1867, s. 3

  20. The Public Gambling Act of 1867, s. 1.

  21. The Public Gambling Act of 1867, s. 12.

  22. Benegal V. (2013), Gambling Experiences, Problems and Policy in India: A Historical Analysis, Addiction, Vol. 108, December 2013, pp. 2062–2067.

  23. Bimalendu De v. Union of India, AIR 2001 Cal 30.

  24. State of Andhra Pradesh v. K Satyanarayana, 1968 AIR 825, para 15; Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 1996 AIR 1153, paras 19-20.

  25. Morrow v. State, 511 P.2d 127 (1973).

  26. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, 1957 AIR 628.

  27. Prize Competition Act, 1955, s. 2(d).

  28. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, 1957 AIR 628, para 23.

  29. Ibid., para 5.

  30. Ibid.

  31. State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana, 1968 AIR 825.

  32. Ibid., para 12.

  33. Ibid.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Ibid.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 1996 AIR 1153.

  38. Ibid., para 51.

  39. Ibid., paras 22-26.

  40. Ibid., paras 21-26.

  41. State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana, 1968 AIR 825, para 11.

  42. Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, s. 13—Nothing in this Act shall be held to apply to any game of mere skill wherever played.

  43. Bengal Public Gaming Act, 1867, s. 11-A—Nothing in this Act shall apply to any game of mere skill wherever played.

  44. Public Gambling Act, 1867 as amended by United Provinces Act X of 1938, s. 13A.

  45. Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance 1949.

  46. Karnataka Police Act, 1963, s. 176.

  47. Ibid., s. 2. (7).

  48. Ashoka Marketing Ltd v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406.

  49. Collins P. (2003), pp. 18.

  50. The Sports Law & Policy Centre (2018), pp. 6.

  51. Indian Poker Association & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition Nos. 39167 to 39169 of 2013, Judgement dated 8 October 2013.

  52. Ibid., para 6.

  53. The Odisha Prevention of Gambling Act, 1955, s. 4.

  54. Ibid., s. 5.

  55. Ibid., s. 6.

  56. Ibid., s. 3.

  57. Chanchani M., “The rise & rise of Dream11 and fantasy sports gaming in India”, The Times of India, 24 March 2019 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/68543816.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst . Accessed 14 May 2021.

  58. Shri Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, CWP No.7559 of 2017, Judgement dated 18 April 2017.

  59. Ibid., paras 6-8.

  60. Ibid., para 6.

  61. Ibid., para 7.

  62. Ibid., para 8.

  63. Ibid., para 29.

  64. Ibid.

  65. The Constitution of India Article 136 (1) provides that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

  66. Shri Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., Supreme Court Order dated September 15, 2017, Supreme Court of India, Record of Proceedings, Diary No. 27511 of 2017.

  67. Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India & Ors., Crim. PIL 22 of 2019, Order dated 30 April 2019.

  68. Ibid., para 17.

  69. Ibid.

  70. Shri Varun Gumber v. Union of India, SLP (Cr.) No. 35191/2019, Order dated 4 October 2019; Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India, SLP (Cr.) No. 43346/2019, Order dated 13 December 2019.

  71. Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India, SLP (Cr.) No. 43346/2019, Order dated 13 December 2019.

  72. Union of India v Dream11 Fantasy Pvt. Ltd., Miscellaneous Application No. 11445/2019, Order dated 31 January 2020.

  73. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Gurdeep Singh Sachar and Ors., SLP (Cr.) No. 42282/2019, Order dated 6 March 2020.

  74. Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., CWP No. 6653/2019, Judgement dated 14 February 2020.

  75. Ibid., para 15.

  76. Sayta J., “Online Gaming Industry In Doldrums, How Central Government Can Make A Big Difference” Outlook Magazine, 17 February 2021, https://www.outlookindia.com/blog/story/sports-news-online-gaming-industry-in-doldrums-how-central-government-can-make-a/4241 Accessed 14 May 2021.

  77. The Sikkim Online Gaming (Regulation) Act, 2008, s. 3(2).

  78. Ibid., s. 2(d).

  79. Ibid., s. 3(2).

  80. Law Commission of India (2018), Report No. 276, pp.65.

  81. Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Games of Skill Act, 2016, s. 2(3).

  82. Ibid., Schedule A.

  83. Meghalaya Regulation of Gaming Act, 2021, s. 2(k).

  84. Ibid., s. 3(1).

  85. Meghalaya Regulation of Gaming Act, 2021, s. 10(4).

  86. Statement of Object and Reasons, Telangana Gaming Amendment Act, 2017, Telangana Gazette Notification dated November 7, 2017.

  87. Ibid.

  88. Law Commission of India (2018), Report No. 276, pp.69.

  89. Dhyani K., “IPL 2020:Mobile handsets category takes backseat, gaming companies likely to be the hottest advertising category for IPL 2020”, https://www.insidesport.co/ipl-2020-mobile-handsets-category-takes-backseat-gaming-companies-likely-to-be-the-hottest-advertising-category-for-ipl-2020/. Accessed 19 May 2021.

  90. D. Siluvai Venance v. State, Crl OP (MD) No. 6568 of 2020.

  91. Ibid., para 51.

  92. State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 77; Census Commissioner and others v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796.

  93. Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and Ors., CWP No. 5661/2019.

  94. Amit M. Nair v. State of Gujarat, CWP No. 146/2020.

  95. Sharada D. R. v. State of Karnataka, CWP No. 13714/2020.

  96. Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., CWP No. 6653/2019.

  97. All India Gaming Federation, Skill Games Charter, http://aigf.in/skillgamescharter/; Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, Charter for Online Fantasy Sports Platforms, https://fifs.in/charter/. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  98. Ravindra Singh Chaudhary v. Union of India and Ors., D.B CWP No. 20779/2019.

  99. Ibid. para 25.

  100. Advertising Standards Council of India, Guidelines for Online Gaming, https://ascionline.in/images/pdf/press-release-gaming-guidelines.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  101. Advisory on Advertisements on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports, etc., 4 December 2020, https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Advisory.pdf Accessed 14 May 2021.

  102. NITI Aayog, Guiding Principles for the Uniform National-Level Regulation of Online Fantasy Sports Platforms in India, https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020-12/FantasySports_DraftForComments.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021.

  103. Ibid., p. 1.

  104. Ibid., pp. 5-6.

  105. Ibid., p. 6.

  106. Ibid., pp. 5-6.

  107. Ibid., Annexure 1.

  108. Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., CWP No. 6653/2019, Judgement dated 14 February 2020.

  109. D. Krishna Kumar v. State of A.P, 2002 (5) ALT 806.

  110. Ibid., para 15.

  111. The Director, Inspector General of Police v. Mahalakshmi Cultural Association, (2012) 3 Mad LJ 561.

  112. Ibid., para 21. Note: The order and observations made in this case were subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the withdrawal of the petition on account of a material factual error. See Mahalakshmi Cultural Association v. Director Inspector General of Police, SLP No. 15371/2012, Judgement dated August 18, 2015.

  113. Ramachandran K. v. Circle Inspector of Police, 2019 (1) KLT 574.

  114. Dominance Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, C/SCA/6903/2017, Judgement dated 4 April 2017.

  115. Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India & Ors., Crim. PIL 22 of 2019, Order dated 30 April 2019.

  116. Chandresh Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., CWP No. 6653/2019, Judgement dated 14 February 2020.

  117. Shri Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, CWP No.7559 of 2017, Judgement dated 18 April 2017; Gurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India & Ors., Crim. PIL 22 of 2019, Order dated 30 April 2019.

  118. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Secretary Home and Ors., CWP No. 23063/2017.

  119. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, CWP No. 18022/2020.

  120. Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, Charter for Online Fantasy Sports Platforms, para 1.1.4, https://fifs.in/charter/. Accessed 14 May 2021.

  121. Ravindra Singh Chaudhary v. Union of India, D.B. CWP No. 20779/2019), pp. 18.

  122. NITI Aayog, Guiding Principles for the Uniform National-Level Regulation of Online Fantasy Sports Platforms in India, Annexure 1, entry 2 https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020-12/FantasySports_DraftForComments.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LawNK, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    Nandan Kamath, Abhinav Shrivastava & R. Seshank Shekar

Authors
  1. Nandan Kamath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhinav Shrivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Seshank Shekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nandan Kamath.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors and their firm, LawNK, represent and advise several fantasy sports operators, including Dream11 (a party in a number of the cases mentioned in this article). They also advise the fantasy sports industry body, Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS). All information in this article has been compiled and derived from public sources.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamath, N., Shrivastava, A. & Shekar, R.S. Emerging from the shadows: The evolving legal treatment of fantasy sports in India. Int Sports Law J 21, 188–202 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00190-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00190-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation