The Supreme Court of India will hear, after Diwali, multiple petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which bans real-money online gaming nationwide. Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram said, “This has national ramifications and my business is shut down.”
The Supreme Court heard a series of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which bans real-money online gaming nationwide.
Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan were on the Bench as Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram, representing the petitioners, called for an expedited hearing, 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.
However, Sundaram clarified that the response pertained only to the interim application, not the primary issue. When the Bench noted potential overlaps with ongoing GST-related matters, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman indicated that the only shared concern was the Union’s legislative authority.
Sundaram emphasized that his challenge was not about the Union’s competence but the Act’s constitutionality.
The Bench suggested that the case be referred to the Chief Justice, given its prior involvement with GST-related issues. It directed that all petitions transferred from various High Courts be fully pleaded and ordered that the matter be listed for hearing after the Diwali break, specifically on November 4.
Previously, on September 26, following a request for urgent listing of the petitions, Chief Justice BR Gavai had agreed to schedule the matter.
A counsel representing the petitioners had stated,
“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’s petition to transfer ongoing cases from the High Courts that challenge the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan approved the transfer, stating,
“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.”
Petitions were filed in the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, and Karnataka.
Today, the Karnataka High Court postponed the hearing on writ petitions contesting the newly enacted Online Gaming Act, 2025, noting the Centre’s move to consolidate similar challenges in the Supreme Court.
Head Digital Works, the parent company of A23, has challenged the Act’s validity in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, including the freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g), and infringes on the legal distinction between skill-based and chance-based games.
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 plans to establish a regulatory authority with supporting rules under the new law.
During proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that the government does not oppose online gaming per se but is against money-based online games, citing issues like addiction and, in some instances, suicides among children.
The petition before the High Court was filed by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., which has developed an online carrom platform. The company contends that the Act is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and ultra vires, arguing that it was enacted without consulting stakeholders and infringes on fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
It also asserts that the law violates federal principles, due process, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, swiftly cleared by both Houses of Parliament within two days through a voice vote, and received Presidential assent on August 22. Several past Supreme Court rulings have recognized games like rummy, poker, and carrom as predominantly skill-based, thereby excluding them from state gambling prohibitions.
The petitioners rely on this legal precedent to argue that Parliament lacks the authority to impose an outright ban on such games. They further claim that the blanket prohibition is disproportionate and fails to explore less intrusive alternatives like regulation and age restrictions.
Heralded as a progressive digital policy measure, the legislation aims to balance innovation in India’s gaming sector with robust consumer protection, promoting e-sports and social gaming while imposing a complete ban on exploitative online money games.
It is designed with two primary objectives: to foster and regulate the legitimate and beneficial aspects of online gaming and to safeguard individuals, particularly the youth and vulnerable groups, from the detrimental effects of online money gaming.
In moving the Bill, Electronics and IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw labeled online money gaming a “public health menace,” highlighting that approximately 45 crore users collectively lose nearly Rs.20,000 crore annually on such platforms.
The law consists of six chapters, each addressing different facets of regulation, prohibition, and enforcement.
Case Title: Clubroom 11 Sports and Entertainment Private Limited v. Union of India