The Act imposes a blanket ban on real-money online games and related advertisements while promoting e-Sports and casual online gaming.
Published Sep 08, 2025 | 9:49 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 08, 2025 | 9:50 PM
Supreme Court
Synopsis: The petitions argue that the Act violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to take over all petitions pending in various high courts that challenge the constitutional validity of the new law prohibiting real-money online gaming.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan granted the Centre’s request to transfer these cases, stating in its order, “The transfer petition is granted, and the proceedings are transferred to this court… We clarify that no other high court shall entertain challenges to the said law, and all proceedings will be transferred to this court.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government in the matter.
The government noted that at least three high courts—in Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh—are currently handling challenges to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. It argued that consolidating these cases before the Supreme Court was necessary to prevent conflicting rulings.
“The matter is listed for orders before the Karnataka High Court on Monday,” the Union’s counsel informed the bench, prompting the Chief Justice to agree to an early listing.
In its petition, filed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Union government sought to transfer three writ petitions—filed by Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt Ltd—pending before the Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh high courts, respectively.
The government contended that these petitions raise substantially similar legal questions regarding the 2025 Act and should be consolidated before a single constitutional authority.
The petitions argue that the Act violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
They also claim that Parliament lacks the legislative authority to enact such a law due to India’s federal structure and that the Act fails to differentiate between games of skill and games of chance.
The Centre warned that allowing multiple high courts to rule on these issues could lead to conflicting judgments, causing confusion and uncertainty about the law’s validity and application nationwide. This, it argued, would waste judicial resources and undermine litigants’ expectations of a uniform and definitive ruling.
The Union’s petition further stressed that the Act applies across India, covering online money gaming services offered domestically or from abroad, making it essential for the Supreme Court to authoritatively determine its constitutional validity.
With the potential for more challenges from other stakeholders, the government stressed on the need to centralise litigation to ensure consistency.
The Act, passed in August, imposes a blanket ban on real-money online games and related advertisements while promoting e-Sports and casual online gaming. It stipulates penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and fines of up to ₹1 crore for service providers, and up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of up to ₹50 lakh for those advertising or promoting such platforms.
On 30 August, Solicitor General Mehta told the Karnataka High Court that the law’s enforcement could not be halted simply because “one individual” was aggrieved.
He argued that the law’s passage and presidential assent left no room for courts to block its implementation. When asked if notification was imminent, Mehta indicated it could happen “soon,” though he lacked formal instructions.
These remarks were made during a petition by Head Digital Works, the parent company of the online rummy and poker platform A23, which argued that the blanket ban disregarded the established distinction between games of skill and chance.
The Karnataka High Court issued a notice to the Union government and requested a response by 8 September.
On 2 September, the Centre informed the Delhi High Court that the Act would soon be notified, after which an authority would be established to classify online games and formulate rules.
Mehta told a bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that while the government supported online gaming in general, “online money games” were linked to addiction among children and even suicides.
(Edited and compiled by Amit Vasudev)
