The Supreme Court will hear a batch of petitions on November 4 challenging the Online Gaming Act 2025, which bans online money games and restricts banking and advertising links, amid rising debates over its constitutionality and impact on digital gaming.
The Supreme Court announced that it will hear a series of transferred petitions on November 4, challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
This legislation bans online money games and imposes restrictions on related banking and advertising services.
The issue was raised during a mention before a bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, where Senior Advocates C. Aryaman Sundaram and Arvind P. Datar, representing the petitioners from various High Courts, sought confirmation of the hearing date.
Sundaram informed the Bench that the petitioners had already approached the Chief Justice of India regarding the scheduling.
He stated,
“My instructing Advocate-on-Record had mentioned the matter before the learned CJI, who observed that it would be in the fitness of things if this bench were to direct that the matter be taken up on November 4 as scheduled,”
Justice Pardiwala responded,
“Then we will hear it.”
Earlier On October 7, Sundaram had urged for an expedited hearing, citing the national implications of the issue and stating,
“This has national ramifications and my business is shut down.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, informed the Court that a reply had been submitted, but Sundaram clarified that this response pertained only to the interim application and not the main issue.
The Bench noted potential overlaps with GST-related proceedings, to which Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman remarked that the only commonality was the Union’s legislative authority. Sundaram emphasized that he was not questioning the Union’s competence but was challenging the constitutionality of the Act itself.
The Bench indicated that the case might be presented to the Chief Justice since it had previously addressed the GST-related matter.
Also Read: Bursting of Firecrackers Not a Religious Right, Says Former Supreme Court Judge Abhay Oka
Additionally, On September 26, a request for urgent listing of the petitions against the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, was made before the Court.
CJI BR Gavai agreed to list the case, with counsel stating,
“Our businesses have been shut down, our petition was before the Karnataka High Court which has been transferred here at the instance of the Centre..please list it urgently.”
Recently, the Supreme Court permitted the Centre to transfer cases from High Courts that were challenging the Act.
Notably, these petitions originated from the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, and Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court had postponed hearings on writ petitions contesting the Online Gaming Act, 2025, acknowledging that the Centre sought to consolidate similar challenges in the Supreme Court.
Head Digital Works, the parent company of A23, contested the Act’s validity in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it infringed on fundamental constitutional rights, including the freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g), and blurred the legal distinction between games of skill and games of chance.
The Union government informed the Delhi High Court that it is in the process of implementing the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, and will establish a regulatory authority with accompanying rules under the new legislation.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, passed by both Houses of Parliament in two days via voice vote, and received Presidential assent on August 22.
Past Supreme Court rulings have recognized games such as rummy, poker, and carrom as primarily skill-based and therefore outside the scope of state gambling prohibitions.
This legislation, viewed as a progressive digital policy measure, aims to foster innovation in India’s gaming sector while ensuring strong consumer protection, promoting e-sports and social gaming, and fully prohibiting exploitative online money games.
Case Title: Clubroom 11 Sports and Entertainment Private Limited v. Union of India