AgenciesThe Supreme Court on Monday transferred to itself various petitions, which were filed in three different high courts, challenging the government's decision to impose a blanket ban on online money gaming in India.
Multiple petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, were filed in the high courts of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi.
"The respective high courts are requested to transfer the entire record within a period of one week from today. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of," a Bench comprising justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan ordered, while clarifying that if there is any challenge to the validity of the 2025 Act before any other high court, the same shall not be entertained by any HC.
The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) had sought the transfer of pending cases from the three high courts of Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the high courts may arrive at inconsistent findings on the same Central legislation, creating legal uncertainty. A consolidated hearing before the top court would also ensure uniformity of judicial pronouncements and avoid conflicting decisions, it stated.
The ministry had sought transfer of the petitions filed by Head Digital Works (pending before the Karnataka High Court), Bagheera Carrom (OPC) (pending before the Delhi High Court) and Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment (pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the SC that “this Act has been challenged before three high courts. If the cases are brought here, it would save time.”
Senior counsel Arvind P Datar, CA Sundaram and others, representing various gaming companies that had challenged the law, did not oppose the same. "We will be very happy if we get a finality if the court hears it," Sundaram said.
Due to multiple litigations pending before various high courts involving the same or substantially similar question of law and challenging the vires of the same impugned Act, it is imperative that the same is transferred to this court or any high court to avoid any divergence of opinions or multiplicity of proceedings, the ministry had stated in its petition.
The 2025 Act, which received presidential assent on August 22 but is yet to be notified, imposes a "complete ban" on real-money online gaming in India, including popular formats such as fantasy sports.
The law prohibits offering or playing online money games, regardless of whether they are games of skill or chance. It also categorises violations in this regard as cognisable and non-bailable offences.
“The law was passed with the objective of promoting and strategically regulating the online gaming sector, while safeguarding citizens from the adverse effects of online money games, and simultaneously encouraging and regulating other forms of online gaming,” the government said, adding that the Act raised questions, including whether it violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(G) (right to practice professions), and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.
The Act prohibits advertising and promotion of such games, and financial transactions related to these platforms cannot be processed by banks or payment systems. The authorities will also be empowered to block access to unlawful platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
On August 30, the Karnataka High Court had issued a notice to the Centre on a petition by Head Digital Works, which operates India's marquee gaming brand 'A23', against the government's ban on online money gaming.
The government last week told the Delhi High Court that it will soon constitute a regulatory authority and frame rules and regulations under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The court was hearing a petition by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) challenging the Act. Bagheera Carrom said the Act was promulgated in haste, without stakeholder consultation and in violation of the Fundamental Rights, due process of law, federal principles and the doctrine of separation of powers.
On Wednesday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court sought the government's reply on a petition by Clubroom 11 Sports and Entertainment challenging the 2025 Act. Therein, the petitioner argued that fantasy sports was a distinct category of online gaming that has already been upheld in several judicial pronouncements and, therefore, the government ought to regulate the sector rather than prohibit it outright.
Multiple petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, were filed in the high courts of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi.
"The respective high courts are requested to transfer the entire record within a period of one week from today. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of," a Bench comprising justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan ordered, while clarifying that if there is any challenge to the validity of the 2025 Act before any other high court, the same shall not be entertained by any HC.
The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) had sought the transfer of pending cases from the three high courts of Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the high courts may arrive at inconsistent findings on the same Central legislation, creating legal uncertainty. A consolidated hearing before the top court would also ensure uniformity of judicial pronouncements and avoid conflicting decisions, it stated.
The ministry had sought transfer of the petitions filed by Head Digital Works (pending before the Karnataka High Court), Bagheera Carrom (OPC) (pending before the Delhi High Court) and Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment (pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the SC that “this Act has been challenged before three high courts. If the cases are brought here, it would save time.”
Senior counsel Arvind P Datar, CA Sundaram and others, representing various gaming companies that had challenged the law, did not oppose the same. "We will be very happy if we get a finality if the court hears it," Sundaram said.
Due to multiple litigations pending before various high courts involving the same or substantially similar question of law and challenging the vires of the same impugned Act, it is imperative that the same is transferred to this court or any high court to avoid any divergence of opinions or multiplicity of proceedings, the ministry had stated in its petition.
The 2025 Act, which received presidential assent on August 22 but is yet to be notified, imposes a "complete ban" on real-money online gaming in India, including popular formats such as fantasy sports.
The law prohibits offering or playing online money games, regardless of whether they are games of skill or chance. It also categorises violations in this regard as cognisable and non-bailable offences.
“The law was passed with the objective of promoting and strategically regulating the online gaming sector, while safeguarding citizens from the adverse effects of online money games, and simultaneously encouraging and regulating other forms of online gaming,” the government said, adding that the Act raised questions, including whether it violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(G) (right to practice professions), and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.
The Act prohibits advertising and promotion of such games, and financial transactions related to these platforms cannot be processed by banks or payment systems. The authorities will also be empowered to block access to unlawful platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
On August 30, the Karnataka High Court had issued a notice to the Centre on a petition by Head Digital Works, which operates India's marquee gaming brand 'A23', against the government's ban on online money gaming.
The government last week told the Delhi High Court that it will soon constitute a regulatory authority and frame rules and regulations under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The court was hearing a petition by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) challenging the Act. Bagheera Carrom said the Act was promulgated in haste, without stakeholder consultation and in violation of the Fundamental Rights, due process of law, federal principles and the doctrine of separation of powers.
On Wednesday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court sought the government's reply on a petition by Clubroom 11 Sports and Entertainment challenging the 2025 Act. Therein, the petitioner argued that fantasy sports was a distinct category of online gaming that has already been upheld in several judicial pronouncements and, therefore, the government ought to regulate the sector rather than prohibit it outright.
as a Reliable and Trusted News Source
Add Now!
