The BRICS TimesOn September 8, the Supreme Court will examine the Centre’s plea seeking consolidation of all pending challenges to the new law banning real-money online games from various high courts.
The Supreme Court will on September 8 take up the Union government’s plea to transfer to itself all matters currently pending before different high courts that contest the constitutional validity of the recently enacted law prohibiting real-money online games.
During a brief mentioning on Friday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai noted that he would consider listing the case on Monday after the Centre’s counsel pressed for urgent hearing. In its transfer application, the government has also requested the apex court to halt proceedings before all high courts until its plea is conclusively decided.
The Union government pointed out that the high courts of Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh are already hearing petitions questioning the legality of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. It stressed that the questions raised are of national importance and should be adjudicated by one constitutional forum to avoid contradictory rulings.
“The matter is listed before the Karnataka high court on Monday for orders,” the Centre’s counsel informed the bench, prompting the CJI to agree to an early listing.
Filed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the petition seeks the transfer of three writs filed by Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt Ltd. These cases, pending in the Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh high courts, challenge the 2025 Act on largely identical grounds, the Centre stated.
The government emphasised that the pending challenges argue the law infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of profession, trade or business), and Article 21 (protection of life and liberty). Petitioners have further argued that Parliament lacks authority to legislate on the matter given the country’s federal framework, while also criticising the Act for failing to differentiate between skill-based and chance-based games. The definition of “online money games,” it noted, has been assailed as unconstitutional across all petitions.
The Centre cautioned that if multiple high courts issue divergent rulings, it would create uncertainty over the law’s applicability nationwide, risk duplication of judicial effort, and unsettle stakeholders expecting uniformity from the justice system. It underscored that only the Supreme Court can conclusively determine the constitutional validity of the legislation, given that the law applies across the country and even extends to platforms based overseas but accessible in India.
Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the government also warned that further petitions may soon be filed by additional parties, making it even more crucial to centralise the disputes before one forum. It therefore urged the top court to not only take over the three current cases but also stay all high court proceedings in the meantime.
This development follows the government’s recent defence of the law before various high courts. The Centre has maintained that once Parliament enacts a statute and the President grants assent, its notification is a “constitutional function” that cannot be subjected to judicial restraint. The law, passed in August, bans all forms of real-money online games and related advertisements, while promoting e-sports and recreational online gaming. Under the Act, service providers face penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and fines reaching ₹1 crore, while advertisers could face up to two years in jail and fines of ₹50 lakh.
On August 30, SG Mehta argued before the Karnataka high court that the law’s implementation could not be delayed simply because “one particular individual” was dissatisfied. He emphasised that with both parliamentary passage and presidential assent completed, courts lacked scope to intervene in its enforcement. When asked about the timing of notification, Mehta responded that it might occur “soon,” although he lacked specific instructions. The remarks were made during proceedings on a petition by Head Digital Works, operator of the rummy and poker platform A23, which claimed the law wrongly equates skill-based games with games of chance. The high court issued notice to the Union and scheduled its response for September 8.
Meanwhile, on September 2, the Centre told the Delhi high court that notification of the Act was imminent, after which an authority would be established under the law to classify games and frame regulations. Before a bench headed by Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, SG Mehta reiterated that while the government did not oppose the promotion of online gaming generally, “online money games” were linked to severe social harms, including addiction among children and even suicides. This submission arose during a petition filed by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, developer of an online paid carrom game with pooled rewards. The company contended that without clarity from the forthcoming regulatory authority, its business prospects remain in jeopardy.
