Could India Benefit From Regulating the Online Gambling Industry like the UK?
India’s parliament recently passed sweeping legislation designed to prohibit gambling nationwide, following concerns that the industry was extracting billions of dollars annually from hundreds of millions of users. The law criminalises the offering, financing and promotion of most gambling-style platforms, with penalties that may include prison terms. Supporters frame the move as a social-protection measure: a way to shield families from debt, addiction and predatory marketing.
Yet a national ban raises a familiar policy dilemma. Even in states that previously outlawed online rummy or fantasy platforms, participation never vanished — it simply shifted to offshore websites operating beyond the reach of Indian authorities. By shutting down domestic visibility and supervision, India may be driving demand toward markets with less consumer safeguards.
That tension prompts a broader question: instead of prohibition, could India benefit from selective regulation — something closer to the United Kingdom’s mature licensing model?
The UK’s Model: Oversight Instead of Denial
In the UK, online gambling is legal but tightly supervised by a central authority, the Gambling Commission, under a law dating back nearly two decades. Rather than treating betting or online casinos as moral taboos, policymakers built a system focused on visibility, accountability and tax compliance.
Any company offering digital gambling services to British consumers must apply for a licence, undergo due-diligence checks, verify customer identities, comply with anti-money-laundering rules, and follow codes of practice designed to minimise social harm. The same framework obliges operators to give customers access to self-exclusion tools, spending caps and clear complaints-handling channels.
Because the marketplace is transparent, consumer platforms can evaluate licensed brands and monitor who is behaving responsibly. A good example is Hityah.com, a long-running UK casino comparison portal that tracks regulated operators, reviews their offers and terms, to guide players to the right online casino.
Economic Value Versus Moral Panic
Regulation also turns gambling into a taxable industry. In the UK, revenue streams from supervised operators can be used to fund addiction-treatment programmes, public information campaigns and enforcement staffing. Licensed companies can advertise within approved limits, sponsor major sports organisations and enter into commercial contracts — all of which generate corporate tax, employment and media spending.
Contrast that with India’s recent direction. Revenue from offshore gambling flows into foreign jurisdictions, leaving Indian regulators with little leverage. Meanwhile, tax debates around online skill-gaming have shown how reactive interventions can distort rather than manage behaviour. Where policymakers see a public-health problem, others see a lost economic opportunity — especially in a digital landscape driven by cricket, 24-hour sports content and mobile-first entertainment.
Regulation Isn’t a Magic Shield
Of course, a regulatory regime is not a cure-all. The UK still wrestles with consumer harm, political pressure and allegations that affordability checks intrude on personal freedom. Enforcement actions continue against firms that fail to protect vulnerable customers. Critics argue that loopholes allow some harmful products to circulate, while marketing around sport remains a flashpoint.
In other words, even a mature market struggles with balancing economic value against social risk. The lesson is not that regulation is flawless — only that supervised systems are easier to correct than illicit ones. When operators are licensed, governments have leverage: they can fine, suspend or revoke permissions. When businesses sit offshore, the only tools left are prohibition and punishment — neither of which addresses behaviour on the ground.
Could India Adapt Its Own Version?
India’s legal and political landscape is far more complex than Britain’s. Gambling falls between federal and state powers; attitudes vary by region; and lawmakers remain cautious about normalising betting in a country where household savings are socially important. A “copy-and-paste” solution is unrealistic.
But a regulated Indian model — tailored rather than transplanted — could introduce licensing for approved products, require mandatory identity checks, channel advertising through clear rules, and ring-fence taxes for public-health responses. With a central framework, authorities could protect minors, track problem play, and redirect economic value away from illegal operators.
The real question is whether total prohibition achieves those goals. History in other sectors suggests that bans often shift behaviour instead of eliminating it. Regulation, by contrast, gives governments a toolkit: visibility, taxation, accountability and the ability to intervene before harm escalates.