Since 22 October 2026, Polymarket's official X account has shown the notice "withheld in response to a legal demand" to users in India, MediaNama reported. The account is still visible elsewhere. The restriction comes about five months after Indian ISPs began DNS-blocking polymarket.com. Neither MeitY nor Polymarket has publicly said what legal order is behind it.
The strongest case for the government
The government's position is not frivolous. Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 on 20 and 21 August 2025. PRS Legislative Research summarises it as banning online money games, defined as games where users stake money expecting monetary gains "whether the outcome depends on skill, chance, or both." It also bans advertising them and facilitating their payments. Offering or facilitating carries up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹1 crore. Advertising carries up to two years and ₹50 lakh. The bill also lets the central government block information relating to online money gaming services.
The harms legislators cited are real: household debt, addiction and fraud. A foreign platform that does not register or geo-fence India is hard to reach by any means other than blocking. If prediction markets fall within the statute, which Indian authorities say they do, enforcement against a platform's promotional channels is a predictable next step.
What the record shows, and what it doesn't
Per MediaNama, the implementing rules were issued on 22 April 2026 and took effect on 1 May. A MeitY advisory dated 25 April reportedly listed Polymarket among platforms already blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act. ISPs applied DNS-level blocks on 21–22 May. MediaNama also reports that measurements were uneven, with some resolutions still reaching the site.
The X action looks like the same machinery. X has previously complied with Section 69A orders that block whole profiles. But the public cannot confirm which provision was used. The order could rest on Section 69A, on the gaming law's own blocking power, or on something else. Polymarket has not said which. That matters because each route carries different safeguards.
Why secrecy is the issue
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 March 2015), the Supreme Court quoted Section 69A as permitting blocking only "for reasons to be recorded in writing." The Court upheld the provision largely because of that procedure and the Blocking Rules, 2009. Critics have long argued that Rule 16, which requires confidentiality of blocking requests and actions, undercuts that safeguard. A person who cannot see the order cannot challenge it.
Courts have since leaned toward the executive. In June 2023 the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter's challenge to MeitY's blocking orders. According to Internet Freedom Foundation's summary, the court read Section 69A as allowing whole accounts to be blocked and imposed ₹50 lakh in costs for non-compliance. The practical message to platforms is to comply quietly. Platforms therefore rarely litigate, so the safeguards that depend on someone challenging an order are rarely used.
Proportionality: an account is not a casino
Polymarket's website is the venue where stakes are placed. Its X account is a publisher's account. It carries odds, commentary and news about elections, policy and events. Blocking the website addresses the statutory harm. Blocking the account suppresses speech that Indian residents could otherwise read, share and critique, including reporting on the very prohibition affecting them.
The gaming law can lawfully restrict advertising of money games. But whether an account's posts amount to advertising is a factual question. It needs a reasoned determination, and a blanket withholding does not provide one. A narrower tool would be a takedown of specific promotional posts, with reasons given to the publisher. Account-level blocking is the most restrictive option available. Nothing public shows that anyone considered a narrower one.
There is also a collateral cost. MediaNama reports that MeitY has warned intermediaries that facilitating prohibited services risks their Section 79 safe harbour. Hosts that fear losing safe harbour will over-comply. They will withhold borderline accounts, and the chilling effect will reach people who have nothing to do with gambling.
What would be proportionate
- Publish the legal basis. Disclose at least which statutory provision and which authority were used, even if operational detail stays confidential.
- Notify the affected publisher. Polymarket should be told, in writing, why its account was withheld, so it can contest the decision.
- Prefer post-level action. Where the harm is promotion of a prohibited product, act on the promotional content before silencing an entire account.
- Get a court ruling on prediction markets. MediaNama notes courts have not tested whether decentralised prediction markets differ from traditional betting. Until they do, the state is enforcing an untested classification through unreviewed orders.
The case against Polymarket may be sound. But enforcement of a valid ban is more credible when it comes with a published order and a reasoned decision. The Supreme Court made written reasons the price of Section 69A's constitutionality in 2015. Eleven years later, an account disappears and no reasons are available to read.