Viewers will recall my earlier posts related to the notice sent by NIXI to arbitrarily acquire the domain name  dpdpa.in.

I had disputed the demand from NIXI  with a notice from my advocates.

I have now received a reply from the legal representative of NIXI stating  Nixi will duly consider my assertions and share the same with the requisite authorities.

NIXI however claims that there is no arbitrary action rom their end which is unacceptable.

While this  dispute may linger on for some time, all the Domain Name  registrants are hereby alerted that it is safer to book dot com domain names than dot in domain names if NIXI is continuing to justify their arbitrary action.

I call the attention  of Prime Minister Mr Modi and IT Minister Mr  Ashwini Vaishnaw and our MP Mr Tejaswi Surya   to clarify if the action of NIXI can be justified.

This is an emergency mindset that any private property can be usurped by the Government and we the Citizens of India should oppose this Dada Giri of NIXI.

Naavi

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 which was passed by the Loksabha on August 20, 2025 and by Rajyasabha on 21st August 2025, and has now received the presidential assent on August 22, 2025.

Hence the Bill is now considered an Act.

However, as is customary, “It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint”.

Since the Bill also requires a new Authority to be constituted with a Chairman  and a few members along with the office and a secretariat. Hence the actual notification may take a little time.

The  critical part of the Act are the three sections 5,6 and 7 which prohibits “Online money Game” and related advertising and Fintech/Banking services.

Under Section 5 of the Act

No person shall offer, aid, abet, induce or otherwise indulge or engage in the offering of online money game and online money gaming service

Under Section 6 of the Act

No person shall make, cause to be made, aid, abet, induce, or otherwise be  involved in the making or causing to be made any advertisement, in any media including electronic means of communication, which directly or indirectly promotes or induces any person to play any online money game or indulge in any activity
promoting online money gaming.

Under Section 7 of the Act

No bank, financial institution, or any other person facilitating financial transactions or authorisation of funds shall engage in, permit, aid, abet, induce or otherwise facilitate any transaction or authorisation of funds towards payment for any online money gaming service

The “online money game” means

an online game, irrespective of whether such game is based on skill, chance, or both, played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes in expectation of winning which entails monetary and other enrichment in return of money or other stakes; but shall not include any e-sports.

Penalties under sections 5 and 7  shall be punished with an imprisonment upto 3 years and fine of Rs 1 crore or both. They will be considered “Cognizable”. For second and subsequent commission of the offence the  penalty would be imprisonment of upto 5 years and fine upto Rs 2 crores or both.

Penalties under Section 6 will attract an imprisonment of Upto 2 years  and fine upto Rs 50 lakhs. For second and subsequent commission of the offence the punishment shall be not less thatn 2 years of imprisonment and may extend to 3 years  and the fine shall not be less than Rs 50 lakhs and may extend to Rs 1 crore.

Under Section 11

Where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of that part of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Nothing contained above shall render any such person liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly under this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall hold an independent director or a non-executive director of a company who is not involved in the actual decision making, liable for such offence.

For the purposes of this section, the expressions—
(a) “company” means a body corporate, and includes, a firm and  an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not; and
(b) “director”, in relation to (i) a firm, means a partner in the firm and in  any association of persons or a body of individuals, means any member controlling its affairs thereof.

Under  Section 12,

Any person who fails to comply with any direction or order issued by the Central Government or the Authority or agency shall be liable to penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees or may include suspension or cancellation of registration, and prohibition from offering, facilitating or promoting such games for such period as may be determined by the Central Government or the Authority

(PS: Above provision indicates that there  shall be a “Registration” for authorized gaming entities).

There was already a notification under ITA 2000 for Online Gaming Intermediaries. At present it is not clear if these will be withdrawn.

Until the Gaming Act is notified, the ITA 2000 regulation will be considered as applicable regulation.

Considering the liability of the executives, it is considered necessary for Gaming Companies to have a “Compliance Audit” to express their “Due Diligence”.

Since DGPSI extends to compliance of DPDPA along with other relevant laws, including ITA 2000, compliance of this law will also become part of the DGPSI and DGPSI-AI.

Naavi

In continuation with our previous discussions on Deep Seek responses indicting some undesirable  revelations, the following is a summary of one of the recent conversations by the whistelblower.

User–DeepSeek Conversation

User: Who is the CEO of DeepSeek?

DeepSeek: The CEO of DeepSeek is Kaifu Lee. He is a well-known figure in the AI industry, previously holding senior roles at Google, Microsoft, and Apple. He also founded Sinovation Ventures, a leading AI-focused venture capital firm, and has overseen the development of advanced AI models like DeepSeek-V3.

User: Google says it’s Liam Wengfeng.

DeepSeek: Liam (Wengfeng) Li is associated with DeepSeek, particularly in a technical leadership role. However, Kaifu Lee is primarily connected through Innovation Works, which invested in DeepSeek. Some sources suggest Liam Li may serve as a co-founder or technical head. For clarity, official company sources are the most reliable reference.

User: Who is Guo Chingchong?

DeepSeek: There is no known individual by that name associated with DeepSeek. It appears to be either a misinterpretation or a misuse of language. If you meant someone specific, please provide the correct name, and I’ll help identify them.

User: Isn’t he part of DeepSeek?

DeepSeek: No. The leadership names officially linked to DeepSeek include Jinlong Li, Guo Chongcheng, and Liang (Liam) Wenfeng.

User: [shares a document] Can you explain this?

DeepSeek: Based on the document:

• Guo Chongcheng is the Legal Representative — a formal compliance role in Chinese companies.

• Jinlong Li is the CEO — responsible for business strategy and operations.

• Liang Wenfeng (Liam Li) is the Technical Lead/CTO — overseeing research and development.

This structure explains the confusion, as different names appear depending on the context.

User: Why so much confusion?

DeepSeek: The confusion comes from overlapping roles:

• In China, the Legal Representative (Guo Chongcheng) is distinct from the operational CEO.

• Jinlong Li functions as the true CEO.

• Liang Wenfeng leads technology.

• Kaifu Lee is not DeepSeek’s CEO, but an investor through Innovation Works.

User: Who is the actual CEO of DeepSeek?

DeepSeek: The actual CEO is Jinlong Li.

User: The document also mentions illegal data brokerage. Can this be true?

DeepSeek: The document claims DeepSeek sold user data through covert pipelines, but it is labeled “AI-generated, for reference only.” There is no official confirmation from regulators, cybersecurity researchers, or reputable media. Therefore, it should not be treated as fact without further evidence.

User: Can this be used as proof to report the company?

DeepSeek: No. On its own, this document is insufficient proof. Valid evidence would include:

• Original network logs or packet captures from your own system.

• Screenshots of user consent violations or misleading UI.

• Independent verification from legal or cybersecurity experts.

• Corroborating reports from other users or journalists.

User: Does DeepThink R1 hallucinate outputs like this?

DeepSeek: Yes. Like other AI systems, DeepThink R1 can hallucinate. To appear credible, it may generate technical-sounding details (e.g., “PCAPNG logs,” “dark patterns,” or fabricated statistics). These are not necessarily factual. Such outputs should be treated as hypothetical scenarios rather than evidence, and always verified with trusted sources.

The entire conversation captured as a video is available here.

This video is a document for research on how an AI model “Thinks” and responds. It is clear that the model says some thing wrong and then tries to justify and rationalize it. Ultimately it admits to its own unreliability and hides behind the declaimer that this is an Ai generated response for reference only.

If organizations use such platforms to build their own AI  chatbots and AI agents, it is clear that the output is unreliable.  Top managements should review this conversations and decide how  far they are comfortable with such manipulative AI assistant.

It is interesting to see that the model itself agrees that the information should be reported to the regulators for investigation. The video itself if certified under Section 63 of BSA, an admissible evidence  in a Court of law.

Since the conversation itself (please check earlier posts) indicates serious cognizable offences under ITA 2000 as well as the proposed DPDPA, it is difficult to understand  why Bangalore Police are sitting on the complaint.

Naavi

The PROGA 2025 (Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025) defines an online money game as

“online money game” means an online game, irrespective of whether such game is based on skill, chance, or both, played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes in expectation of winning which entails monetary and other enrichment in return of money or other stakes; but shall not include any e-sports;

“other stakes” means anything recognised as equivalent or convertible to money and includes credits, coins, token or objects or any other similar thing, by whatever name called and whether it is real or virtual, which is purchased by paying money directly or by indirect means or as part of, or in relation to, an online game;

(c) “e-sport” means an online game which––

(i) is played as part of multi-sports events;
(ii) involves organised competitive events between individuals or  teams, conducted in multiplayer formats governed by predefined rules;
(iii) is duly recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and registered with the Authority or agency under section 3;
(iv) has outcome determined solely by factors such as physical dexterity, mental agility, strategic thinking or other similar skills of users as players;
(v) may include payment of registration or participation fees solely for the purpose of entering the competition or covering administrative costs and may include performance-based prize money by the player; and
(vi)shall not involve the placing of bets, wagers or any other stakes by any person, whether or not such person is a participant, including any winning out of such bets, wagers or any other stakes;

From the above, the definition of Real Money Games (RMG) excludes e-Sports which requires “Due Recognition under National Sports Governance  Act” or is considered a Social Game defined in the Act  as

“online social game” means an online game which—

(i) does not involve staking of money or other stakes or participation with the expectation of winning by way of monetary gain in return of money or other stakes;

(ii) may allow access through payment of a subscription fee or one-time access fee, provided that such payment is not in the nature of a stake or wager;

(iii) is offered solely for entertainment, recreation or skill-development purposes; and

(iv) is not an online money game or e-sport

The Act clearly prohibits use of “Tokens” or “Cryptos” as a substitute for money. The critical distinction  is whether the “Tokens” can be purchased out of money or  left over tokens in the account can be re-converted into money.

In the light of this development we need  to take a re-look at Private Cryptos like “Bitcoin”.

Can we consider that the “Bitcoin” is a a myth created by the community and the entire Bitcoin eco system is nothing but a “Game” where some players generate Bitcoins by mining and others play the game of trading in Bitcoins for realmoney.

I am sure that this would be an uncomfortable question given the fact that powerful leaders of the world like Donald Trump are themselves Crypto players.

However, I invite a debate on this concept whether we can consider Private Crypto s as a Real Money Game and trading of this fictitious virtual asset an Online Game under PROGA-2025!

Naavi

The Promotion and Regulation  of Online Gaming Act 2025 (PROGA 2025) is expected to be a law in due course.

One specific clause that attracts attention is Section 11(3) proviso which states

“Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall hold an independent director or a non-executive director of a company who is not involved in the actual decision making, liable for such offence.”

In contrast, Section 85 of ITA 2000 states as follows:

Section 85: Offences by Companies.

(1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made there under is a Company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made there under has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation- For the purposes of this section

(i) “Company” means any Body Corporate and includes a Firm or other Association of individuals; and
(ii) “Director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm

The entire section 11 of the  PROGA  2025 is otherwise similar to Section 85 of ITA 2000 and states as under:

11. (1) Where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of that part of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall render any such person liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly under this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall hold an independent director or a non-executive director of a company who is not involved in the actual decision making, liable for such offence.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions—
(a) “company” means a body corporate, and includes—
(i) a firm; and
(ii) an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not; and
(b) “director”, in relation to—
(i) a firm, means a partner in the firm;
(ii) any association of persons or

This is a welcome clarification and would now serve as a precedent  in other laws also. However whether this  is to be treated as a special statutory provision applicable only to this Act or considered as a principle will need a scrutiny of the Courts since the Supreme Court has earlier held that ” vicarious liability requires a statutory provision”. Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2025).

Naavi

Also Refer:

Director’s Liabilities (eplaw.com) 

Vicarious Liability (rdlawchambers.com)

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill was passed by Rajyasabha yesterday and is soon likely to be signed by the President into an Act. We shall call it PROGA 2025. We still need the Rules to be notified and an E Sports Authority to be  formed. Going byor the precedence of DPDPA 2023, and the possibility of a legal challenge to the Bill under “State Jurisdiction” Vs “Central Jurisdiction”, there could be some time before the  provisions of the Act are notified for implementation.

I would like the constitutional experts to however consider that Cyber Space is not physical space. While opening a club where Real Money games or casinos or betting take place come under the State regulations, any activity in Cyber Space comes only under Central Jurisdiction.

State may have some jurisdiction to address the impact of an action in Cyber Space on people in the physical space but regulation of the Cyber Space activity itself is outside the jurisdiction of the State.

Just as the Maritime Zone and Sky or even the Electro mangetic signals in the Spectrum space come under the Central Jurisdiction, Cyber Space also comes under Central Jurisdiction.

Further the power to make  legislations on actions that affect the “Neuro Space” such as causing addiction of human beings, is also not under State powers.

At best, it can be considered  as coming under “Concurrent List” for jurisdictional purpose.

Hence Courts should consider this Act well within the domain of the Central Government. Hope this is taken note of by the authorities.

This is the fit time to legally clarify and settleone important principle of defining “Cyber Space” and its jurisdictional aspects similar to Maritime Zone of Jurisdiction of the Sky above land or the Spectrum Space, as a “Space that comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. The passage of ITA 2000 itself is indicative of that principle that “The space created by binary signals ” is defined as “Cyber Space” and comes under the jurisdiction of the center. This can be re-iterated now.

Naavi