iGB Affiliate 70 Aug/Sept | Page 53

INSIGHT a spokesperson said: “We always welcome conversation around smart, sensible regulation that protects consumers, operators and the industry and which allows adults to play the games they love in the safety of their own homes.” Not everyone is quite so positive. Jay Sayta, corporate lawyer and founder of GLaws.in, a website that covers developments in gambling laws in India, says he takes the clarification note at face value. “They recommended a ban in the first place and it was mistaken to mean regulation. In the next paragraph they said that if a ban didn’t work regulation could be considered at a later point in time. “What the Law Commission actually meant by their clarification is that they want a stronger law to ban everything.” Sayta concedes, however, that the report is “totally convoluted” and that the Commission was looking to have it “both ways” with its recommendations. The Commission’s fence-sitting is perhaps understandable, given the country is less than a year away from an election and none of the main political parties are likely to make gambling a priority in the run-up to it. Logically, it’s hard to see that the Commission would have bothered to outline such specific guidance for regulation if it wasn’t at least on the cards. (It even outlines various specific consumer- protection measures in the report, though not all of these are seen as workable.) Role of the courts It’s worth pointing out that the Supreme Court, rather than the government, asked the Law Commission to investigate the matter. While Sayta says this is “significant in the sense that it wasn’t a priority for the government”, Gaggar says it may mean the courts will play a big role in deciding how things move forward. “I have a feeling it is not just going to be a political story. I foresee action in the court playing a sentinel role in this going forward.” Ranjana Adhikari, co-head of the media, entertainment and gaming practice at Mumbai-based law firm Nishith Desai Associates, points out that there is a relevant Supreme Court case pending in Geeta Rani v Union of India. “The question before the Supreme Court is whether or not sports betting is a game of skill and whether or not it is already legal in India, which is the entire debate. to jump into the regulatory fray has been PokerStars, experts say others will follow suit. Positioning for change “Operators looking at India are conscious that it is going to be a couple of years before sports betting could officially be a product for them,” says Adhikari. “In the meantime, some are exploring other areas to capture eyeballs; they may be looking at entering into daily fantasy sports, for example, because it is seen as a game of skill in India.” Gaggar says the report has provided further impetus. “Since it came out, I’ve had four companies get in touch “The fence-sitting is perhaps understandable given the country is less than a year away from an election” “If the Supreme Court says it is a game of skill it doesn’t matter if you have legislation in place. It is above board and you can offer it. “It’s slightly unlikely for it to happen in the absence of legislation but it is the best case we have right now.” India’s individual states have the power to make their own laws and some may feel emboldened by the Commission’s report to legislate within their own borders before it becomes a priority for central government. This is more likely to happen in states that have gambling regulation in place, says Adhikari, such as Sikkim, Nagaland and Goa. “These states that are heavily dependent on gaming and tourism for their revenue might look at it as an opportunity,” adds Adhikari. Sikkim and Nagaland’s licensing regimes are for online skill gaming and, while so far the only foreign operator to say that they would like to obtain a licence. They are thinking that a licensing regime is going to happen at a central level but in the meantime they want to get their act together at a state level.” Current foreign direct investment (FDI) laws make it tricky for overseas companies to operate in India. The Law Commission report recognises that there would need to be a change in FDI policy if a licensing regime was put in place, because foreign investment and technology would be needed. For foreign operators, the Law Commission’s long-awaited report is being viewed as largely positive, although given the timing of its release so close to an election those with an eye on India would be wise to temper their expectations. “It’s going to be a slower process than most people anticipate,” says Adhikari. “Everybody just needs to be very patient.” iGB Affiliate Issue 70 AUG/SEP 2018 49