The Online Gaming Act 2025 faces a legal row as the Centre moves the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of High Court cases challenging the controversial law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Central government has approached the Supreme Court seeking to transfer petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, from various High Courts to the apex court. The move is aimed at avoiding multiplicity of litigation and ensuring uniformity in adjudication.
Background of the Case
The law in question, Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, is the first central legislation that imposes a nationwide ban on real-money online gaming, including fantasy sports. The Act criminalises offering or playing online money games, regardless of whether they are classified as games of skill or chance. Importantly, offences under the Act are deemed cognisable and non-bailable.
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, 2025, passed by both Houses of Parliament within two days, and received Presidential assent on August 22, 2025.
Transfer Plea Before the Supreme Court
On Thursday, a Union government counsel mentioned the transfer plea before Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, requesting that the matter be listed next week. The counsel stated:
“Union has filed a transfer plea… Online Gaming Regulation Act has been challenged before three High Courts. If it can be listed on Monday since it’s listed for interim orders before the Karnataka High Court.”
CJI Gavai agreed to list the matter for hearing.
Challenges Across High Courts
The Act has faced legal challenges in at least three High Courts:
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Sept 3, 2025): Directed the Union government to file its response to a plea challenging the law.
- Karnataka High Court (last week): Sought the Centre’s reply to a petition by Head Digital, a major fantasy sports platform.
- Delhi High Court: Entertained a plea by an online carrom gaming platform challenging the constitutionality of the Act.
