Section 18: Overriding Effect and Consistency with Other Laws

Overview

Section 18 of the Online Gaming Act, 2025, clarifies how this law interacts with other existing laws in India. It essentially states that while this Act adds to existing laws, if there’s a conflict between this Act and any other law, the provisions of this Act will take precedence – meaning they will be followed. This ensures the rules around online gaming are consistently applied and aren’t weakened by other regulations.

Key Provisions

• Overriding Effect: The Act prevails over other laws in case of inconsistencies regarding online gaming regulations, including prohibitions, advertising, payment facilitation, blocking, investigation, and compliance.
• Addition to Existing Laws: The Act doesn’t replace existing laws; it builds upon them. It adds new regulations specifically for online gaming.
• Interpretation Rule: When there are multiple ways to interpret a law, the interpretation that best achieves the Act’s goals of protecting consumers and maintaining public order should be chosen.

Practical Impact

This section has a significant impact on various stakeholders. For businesses involved in online gaming, it means they must prioritize compliance with the Online Gaming Act, even if other agreements or local rules suggest something different. Citizens benefit from a clearer, stronger legal framework protecting them from harmful gaming practices. Government authorities have a stronger basis for enforcing regulations and blocking illegal online gaming activities. Any contract or platform policy that contradicts the Act will be considered invalid.

Examples

• Example 1: A state law allows a certain type of online gambling that is prohibited under the Online Gaming Act, 2025. Section 18 means the state law will not apply to that type of online gambling; the Online Gaming Act’s prohibition will be enforced.
• Example 2: A platform’s terms of service state that users are solely responsible for verifying the legality of online gaming in their jurisdiction, even though the Act places a positive obligation on the platform to ensure compliance. Section 18 would invalidate that clause in the terms of service, as it contradicts the Act’s compliance duties.