#e4mExclusive:  A painstaking judgment: ASG N. Venkataraman hails SC online money gaming verdict

For past few years, India’s real money gaming industry fought what it believed was an existential tax battle — one that threatened to wipe out valuations, trigger insolvencies and fundamentally alter the economics of online wagering platforms.

But standing firmly on the other side of the courtroom was N. Venkataraman, the government’s sharp-tongued legal strategist whose relentless arguments against stake-based gaming ultimately helped shape one of the most consequential Supreme Court verdicts for the digital gaming sector. 

For months, the Additional Solicitor General became the face of the Union government’s aggressive push against the real money gaming (RMG) industry, crafting a legal doctrine that could fundamentally reshape how India treats online wagering platforms.

Read On: SC backs state crackdown on online gaming with stakes, sets aside HC orders

Calling the ruling a “defining judgment on online gaming,” Venkatraman told e4m that the Supreme Court’s decision was a “painstaking judgment on all aspects of online gaming.”

But long before the verdict arrived, Venkataraman had already emerged as perhaps the government’s most forceful voice against the industry’s core argument — that games involving skill should not be treated as gambling merely because money is involved.

The Architect of the Government’s Anti-RMG Argument

Representing the Union government, Venkataraman defended retrospective GST demands running into lakhs of crores against online gaming operators. The stakes were enormous, not just for companies operating fantasy sports and poker platforms, but for the future structure of India’s digital gaming economy itself.

Known for his appearances in major constitutional and taxation disputes, including the Kerala borrowing limits case and matters involving the Chamber of Tax Consultants, Venkataraman approached the gaming dispute with a structured legal framework that quickly became one of the most discussed elements of the hearings.

Inside the courtroom, he had introduced what he described as the “seven sutras” of gambling — a set of principles intended to settle the long-running debate over skill versus chance in online gaming.

His arguments were of simple proposition: the introduction of monetary stakes transforms the legal character of the activity.

According to Venkataraman, whether the underlying activity is skill-based or chance-based becomes secondary once money is wagered on an uncertain outcome.

The ‘Seven Sutras’ That Shaped the Case

In a detailed submission drawing from earlier judicial precedents, Venkataraman argued:

• Gambling does not exist without stakes, regardless of whether a game is based on skill or chance.
• Once stakes are introduced, gambling exists irrespective of the game’s nature.
• Even games involving competition fees can qualify as gambling in certain circumstances.
• Games of skill by themselves are not gambling.
• However, games of skill played with stakes become gambling.
• Such games do not cease to remain games of skill, but wagering on them still amounts to gambling activity.
• State-level exemptions protecting skill games played with stakes actually reinforce the idea that such activities would otherwise fall within gambling prohibitions.

Venkataraman’s courtroom strategy effectively shifted the debate away from whether games were skill-centric and toward the act of wagering itself.

“In short, when money is on the line, the government believes it’s gambling — skill or not,” became the defining subtext of the Centre’s position during the hearings.

Read On: SC upholds Rs 2.5 lakh crore GST levy on online money gaming, fantasy sports and casinos

Messi, Horse Racing and ‘A Game of Dice Leads to a Game of Vice’

One of the more memorable moments from the proceedings came when Venkataraman used football icon Lionel Messi to explain the government’s position.

He argued that even if Messi were to bet on himself scoring four goals in a match, or if a fan made the same prediction, the wager would still involve uncertainty and therefore amount to gambling.

“The dissection of game of chance and skill gets obliterated after one puts a stake on it,” he argued before the bench.

He extended the reasoning to horse racing as well. While horse racing itself may legally qualify as a game of skill, betting on it outside a licensed racecourse, he contended, still constitutes gambling.

Then came the line that quickly became emblematic of the hearings: “A game of dice leads to a game of vice.”

The phrase encapsulated the moral and regulatory framing the government sought to build around online wagering platforms.

Beyond Technology Platforms

Venkataraman also attempted to dismantle another key defence frequently advanced by gaming companies — that they merely provide technological infrastructure connecting players.

According to him, RMG operators are deeply embedded in the wagering ecosystem itself.

“They facilitate the entire flow of money,” he argued, pointing to platform-controlled “cash-in” and “cash-out” systems, escrow mechanisms, prize distributions and even in-house rulemaking as evidence that operators are active participants rather than passive intermediaries.

That argument carried significant implications under the GST framework because it strengthened the government’s case that the platforms themselves are supplying actionable claims and gambling services subject to taxation.

GST Without the Skill-Chance Divide

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of Venkataraman’s argument was his insistence that the GST regime does not distinguish between games of skill and games of chance for taxation purposes.

This position struck at the heart of the industry’s long-standing legal strategy, which relied heavily on judicial precedents separating skill games from gambling prohibitions under state laws.

By reframing the issue as one of taxable wagering activity rather than criminal gambling alone, the Centre expanded the scope of its regulatory and fiscal claim over the sector.

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the government’s interpretation now marks a watershed moment for the industry.

For online gaming firms already grappling with higher GST rates, mounting compliance costs and investor anxiety, the ruling could trigger potential insolvency pressures.

But in legal circles, the verdict is also being seen as a personal triumph for Venkataraman — the courtroom strategist who methodically built the government’s case brick by brick and, in the process, may have permanently altered the trajectory of India’s real money gaming industry.