E-Paper
SC to decide validity of new law banning real-money gaming
The Centre highlighted that at least three high courts -- Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, are seized of challenges to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025
The Supreme Court on Monday transferred to itself all petitions pending before high courts challenging the constitutional validity of the new law banning real-money online games.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the transfer petition moved by the Union government, recording in its order, “The transfer petition is allowed and the proceedings are transferred to this court… We make it clear that no other high court will entertain a challenge to the said law and proceedings will stand transferred to this court.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta represented the Centre in the matter.
The Centre highlighted that at least three high courts -- Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, are seized of challenges to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, and stressed that the issues needed to be centralised before the apex court to avoid conflicting orders.
“The matter is listed before the Karnataka high court on Monday for orders,” the Union’s counsel told the bench, prompting the CJI to agree to an early listing.
In its petition, filed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Union government sought the transfer of three writ petitions, filed by Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt Ltd — that are pending before the Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh high courts, respectively.
Also Read: Government to form panel to define banned online games, Delhi High Court told
The Union argued that these petitions all raise substantially similar questions of law concerning the 2025 Act, and that it is imperative that they be consolidated before a single constitutional forum.
The government underlined in its plea that the challenges pending before different high courts all contend that the Act violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before 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. These petitions further contend that Parliament lacks the legislative competence to enact such a law in light of India’s federal structure, and that the Act fails to distinguish between games of skill and games of chance. The plea further highlighted that the definition of “online money games” has been attacked as unconstitutional by all petitioners.
According to the Centre, allowing multiple high courts to decide on these issues would create a serious risk of conflicting judicial pronouncements, leading to confusion and uncertainty about the validity and application of the law across the country. It argued that such a situation would not only waste judicial resources but also undermine the legitimate expectation of litigants that there will be a uniform and conclusive adjudication.
The Union’s petition further emphasised that the Act is intended to apply across India, covering online money gaming services offered within the country or operated from abroad, and therefore its constitutional validity must be authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court.
The petition added that with the likelihood of more challenges being filed by other stakeholders, it is essential to centralise the litigation before one court to ensure coherence.
Stressing the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the government urged the Supreme Court not only to take over the three pending petitions but also to stay proceedings before all the concerned high courts until the transfer petition is decided.
The Centre’s move came days after it defended the legislation before different high courts, maintaining that once Parliament has passed a law and the President has given assent, its notification is a “constitutional function” beyond judicial restraint. The Act, passed in August, introduces a blanket ban on real-money online games and related advertisements, while promoting e-Sports and casual online gaming. It prescribes 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 August 30, SG Mehta told the Karnataka high court that the new law’s enforcement could not be stayed merely because “one particular individual” was aggrieved. He underlined that the law’s passage and presidential assent left no scope for courts to halt its implementation. Asked if notification was imminent, Mehta replied that it could happen “soon”, though he had no formal instructions. The submissions came during a petition filed by Head Digital Works, the parent company of online rummy and poker platform A23, which argued that the blanket ban ignored the long-recognised distinction between games of skill and chance. The Karnataka high court issued notice to the Union government and directed a response by September 8.
Two days later, on September 2, the Delhi high court was informed by the Centre that the Act would soon be notified, following which an authority would be set up under the law to classify online games and frame rules.
Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that while the government had no objection to promoting online games generally, “online money games” had been linked to addiction in children and even suicides. The Delhi proceedings arose from a plea by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, which developed an online version of carrom requiring players to pay a fee, with winners receiving pooled rewards. The company argued that its business future was uncertain without clarity from the yet-to-be-constituted authority.
