Section 17: Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith

Overview

Section 17 of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, protects government officials and the regulatory authority from legal challenges if they take actions honestly and reasonably while enforcing the law. It ensures they can act decisively to address harmful online gaming practices without fear of being personally sued for making a mistake.

Key Provisions

• Protection from Liability: The Central Government, the Online Gaming Authority, State Governments, and their officers are protected from legal action for anything done in good faith under this Act or its rules.
• Good Faith Defined: 'Good faith' means acting honestly, reasonably, and with the intention of fulfilling the purpose of the law. It doesn’t mean actions are always perfect, but that they are taken with genuine belief in their legality and necessity.
• Scope of Protection: This protection applies to all actions taken while implementing or enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Practical Impact

This section primarily affects government authorities and officials responsible for regulating online gaming. It empowers them to take necessary steps to curb illegal or harmful gaming activities without undue fear of legal repercussions. For online gaming companies, it highlights the importance of cooperating with regulators and demonstrating a commitment to compliance. A proactive and transparent approach can minimize potential disputes.

Examples

• Example 1: The Online Gaming Authority blocks access to a website offering illegal betting games based on a reasonable belief that it violates the Act. Even if a later review determines a minor technicality was overlooked, the Authority and its officers are protected under Section 17 because they acted in good faith.
• Example 2: A State Government officer orders an investigation into an online gaming platform following complaints of addiction and financial harm. The investigation reveals some issues, but not as severe as initially reported. As long as the officer had a reasonable basis for initiating the investigation and acted without malice, Section 17 would protect them from liability, even if the initial concerns were slightly overstated.