The BRICS TimesSolicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the government supports online games as long as they are not tied to money.
The central government informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it is in the process of issuing a notification on India’s new online gaming prohibition and will create a regulatory body to determine which games qualify as banned “online money games.”
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the government does not oppose the promotion of online games unless they involve monetary stakes, noting concerns over addiction among children and incidents of suicides linked to such platforms.
The remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Private Limited, the developer of an online carrom game, challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
“The notification is under consideration. Once it is issued, the authority under the Act will be constituted and the relevant rules and regulations will be framed,” Mehta told the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The legislation, which received presidential assent on August 22, imposes a complete ban on online money gaming services. Violators face penalties of up to three years in prison and fines of ₹1 crore. Advertising such platforms could attract up to two years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹50 lakh.
Representing Bagheera Carrom, lawyers Udayan Jain and Harsh Jaiswal explained that their client’s game allows players to pay entry fees and distribute winnings from the pooled amounts. Since the game is yet to be launched, its future under the Act remains unclear.
The company argued that the Act was “hurriedly enacted” and imposes a blanket restriction on all money-based online games, without distinguishing between games of skill and chance. It also claimed that ambiguous definitions of “online money games,” “e-sports,” and “online social games” create legal uncertainty and expose companies to criminal liability.
The court adjourned the matter for eight weeks, observing whether a law still pending notification can be contested based solely on apprehensions about its provisions.
