Today, On 8th September, The Karnataka High Court adjourned till September 11 the plea against the Online Gaming Bill, 2025, which bans real money games, noting the Supreme Court may soon transfer all similar cases. Justice B Shyam Prasad observed, “If apex court takes it up, nothing remains for us.”
The Karnataka High Court adjourned till September 11 the hearing of a petition that challenges the new state law banning online real money games.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court may soon take a decision to transfer all similar cases filed in different High Courts to itself.
During the proceedings, Justice B Shyam Prasad observed,
“If the apex court takes it up, nothing remains for us.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before the High Court on behalf of the Union Government.
The matter will now be heard again on September 11
Earlier, The Karnataka High Court requested a response from the Union government regarding a petition challenging the validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, which prohibits online money games like rummy and poker.
The petition was submitted by Head Digital Works Private Limited, a major player in the online gaming sector.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 stands as the first central legislation to impose a nationwide ban on online games played for stakes. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, swiftly passed by voice vote in both Houses within two days, and received Presidential assent on August 22.
This law criminalizes the offering or playing of online money games, regardless of whether they are classified as games of skill or chance, with offenses categorized as cognizable and non-bailable.
Head Digital Works Private Limited, which operates the A23 platform, challenged Sections 2(1)(g), 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the 2025 Act.
The company argues that these provisions impose an overarching ban on online skill games such as rummy and poker by categorizing them alongside gambling. The petition claims this infringes upon Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21, and 301 of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner, Parliament lacks the legislative authority to enact such a prohibition, and the law disregards binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents that recognize skill games as legitimate business activities protected under Article 19(1)(g).
Case Title: Head Digital Works Vs Union of India