E-Paper
Government to form panel to define banned online games, Delhi High Court told
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said the government has no objection to promoting online games provided they are not money-based.
The Centre told the Delhi high court on Tuesday that it is in process of notifying India’s new online gaming ban and will establish an authority to define games qualify as prohibited “online money games.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said the government has no objection to promoting online games provided they are not money-based, as such platforms have been linked to addiction among children and suicides.
The submission came during proceedings on a petition by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Private Limited, which developed an online carrom game and is challenging the constitutionality of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
“The notification is in contemplation. Once the notification is issued, steps shall also be taken to constitute the authority under the act and also frame rules and regulations,” Mehta told a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The law, which received presidential assent on August 22, introduces a blanket ban on online money gaming services. It imposes penalties of up to three years imprisonment and fines reaching ₹1 crore for service providers. Advertising such platforms carries sentences of up to two years and fines of ₹50 lakh.
Bagheera Carrom’s lawyers Udayan Jain and Harsh Jaiswal argued that their client developed an online carrom version where players pay fees to participate and winners receive collected fees as rewards. However, since the game has not launched, its fate remains uncertain.
The company contends the Act was “promulgated in undue haste” and indiscriminately prohibits all online money games regardless of whether they involve skill or chance. It argues the definitions of “online money games,” “e-Sports,” and “online social games” are vague, creating uncertainty that could expose businesses to criminal prosecution. The court deferred the matter for eight weeks, questioning if a statute yet to be notified can be challenged based on apprehensions about its provisions.
