Key Points
- Polymarket’s X account is now sporting a mysterious legal demand notice in India, but still no word from MeitY or the company on who exactly made the order.
- India’s new gaming law kicked in on May 1st 2026, but Bloomberg’s investigation found Indian customers were still trading with Polymarket in that month, so it looks like there’s still a bit of a grey area here.
- The theory that the account being withheld is connected to Polymarket’s Modi markets remains purely speculative… at least for now.
A Secret Notice Keeps Polymarket Under Wraps in India
Now it’s a case of “who put the notice up?” as Polymarket’s X account is no longer visible in India, and nobody’s talking about who made the demand in the first place. What Polymarket let users do was trade on real-world events, like elections, wars and sports tournaments. Now when Indian users click on the profile, they just get a grey notice saying that the account is withheld after a legal demand. And while the profile loads normally outside of India, this whole thing came to light back on October 22nd 2026… five whole months after India cracked down on the website.
But still, no official explanation on who made the demand, or under what law, just a big fat silence from the IT ministry (MeitY) and Polymarket itself, according to MediaNama. Of course, it’s possible that X simply followed the form that’s been used before, under Section 69A of the IT Act, the bit that lets them block whole profiles. But without the order being published, we just don’t know.
There’s definitely a feeling of “telling timing” to all of this, since it took five months for the account to get locked down after the website got blocked in May. For the Indian followers, the loss is real, but actually pretty limited, they can still see everything except market announcements on X.
Three Facts We Can Agree On, and Four Big Question Marks
The facts are these: the notice showed up on October 22nd, the account works fine abroad, and the website got blocked back in May. Now here are four big question marks that we need answers on: the name of the order, who gave it, the relevant law and any connection to those Modi markets. The thing is, each of these missing answers changes the story in a big way, a political order is a far cry from a routine crackdown on banned platforms.
Those Modi Markets Make a Very Interesting Suspect
Now all eyes are on what Polymarket has been doing with its recent markets. Two of them were pretty straightforward, the question was whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be stepping down from office. One market closes on December 31st 2026, the other on June 30th 2027. If people think Modi walks away before the deadline, they buy “yes” shares, and if they don’t, they buy “no” shares.
Given that all of this happened while protests were ongoing over the way the Election Commission was updating the electoral rolls, you can see why a theory has emerged: bold markets, then a blocked account, sounds pretty suspicious, doesn’t it?
India Already Blocked the Website in May
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 received assent of the President in August 2025. The law came into force on 1 May 2026 after a commencement notification and the promulgation of regulations on 22 April. It prohibits online gambling whether the game outcome is dependent on skill or luck.
MeitY on 25 April had advised naming Polymarket as among those websites that were banned under Section 69A. In addition, the advisory dated April pointed out that some users were converting rupees into stablecoins like USDC in order to access them.
Later Bloomberg news cited the ministry’s letter reporting continued usage of banned betting platforms despite restrictions by domestic authorities. The same report on 18 May found Polymarket and Kalshi still allowing Indian clients to register and trade. There was huge demand for their services; a cricket match played in Lucknow on 7 May between Lucknow Super Giants and Royal Challengers Bengaluru saw trading worth $27.7 million.
Around 21/22 May, the companies started DNS-level blocking, according to reports by MediaNama. Measurement of major networks revealed DNS queries returned sinkhole addresses. In cases where a website was successfully resolved, it still responded, therefore making the ban in May ineffective.
India’s Online Gaming Authority has asked app stores, payment gateways, and telecom providers to prohibit money games. MediaNama reports that MeitY has warned intermediaries of risking safe harbour protection provided by Section 79 by aiding prohibited activities. According to MediaNama, most domestic opinion-trading platforms have discontinued their real money service, with MediaNama adding that only offshore websites are visible at this time.
Kalshi now lists India as a restricted jurisdiction but Polymarket has not listed India.
What a Delhi Survey Can and Cannot Prove
Could the crackdown move the players abroad? There may be an indication in one survey but that survey’s conclusions have a number of limitations. In a survey by CUTS International involving 1,000 former real-money gamers in Delhi NCR, there was reliance on self-reporting. Offshore gambling increased from 68.3 per cent to 82.0 per cent by the 1 September 2025 cut-off date. Usage rate rose from 3.4 per cent to 42.3 per cent in daily usage. The survey results were published in December 2025.
This was prior to the law going into effect on 1 May 2026 and does not say anything about Polymarket’s block.
Next Steps That Can Resolve the Issue
There were three ways this question could be answered, but nothing similar had occurred at the time of writing. The MeitY or X could announce the official order and name the relevant legal section. Polymarket could expand the list of restricted countries to include India, which would resolve the ambiguity concerning the company’s stance. Lastly, a petitioner could petition a court to determine if a decentralised market is considered betting. All three steps could transform the notice into the official policy announcement.
Analysis by Experts: Simple Notice Deserves Response
The secrecy is more important than the blocking itself. The notice stating “legal demand” allows anyone who sees it to write an unofficial interpretation of the issue. Modi markets are the first suspects on the web but we doubt that the obvious interpretation is the full one.
India had already blacklisted Polymarket in April and the new ban can only be based on it. It might seem that the political interpretation creates headlines but a procedural one better reflects reality. People can disagree with us because of the absent order.
Proponents of the ban will argue that Polymarket did not have India’s permission to function there. Opponents will wonder why the law openly stated requires the notice in silence. The Section 79 announcement may be the key to quick compliance of platforms like X but nobody mentions it officially.
Predictive markets are in an awkward position since they resemble polls to their enthusiasts and betting to the regulators. The survey by CUTS reveals that users are likely to move offshore quickly but the company still could not give a statement. The May findings of Bloomberg pointed in the same direction and no one has checked the change caused by the X ban. We believe that Delhi has obligations beyond the standard notice.
Share
5 views
