The BRICS TimesThe Centre highlighted that at least three high courts — Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, are seized of challenges to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The Supreme Court on Monday assumed control over all petitions that were earlier pending before different high courts, challenging the constitutional validity of the newly enacted law that bans real-money online gaming.
A bench led by justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan accepted the transfer plea filed by the Union government. The court, in its order, noted, “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.”
Representing the Centre in the matter was solicitor general Tushar Mehta. The government emphasised that at least three high courts — Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh — were hearing separate petitions questioning the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. It argued that the cases must be heard together by the apex court to prevent contradictory judgments.
The Union’s counsel also informed the bench that “The matter is listed before the Karnataka high court on Monday for orders,” after which the Chief Justice agreed to list the matter early. The government’s transfer petition, moved through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), sought to bring three writ petitions under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. These were filed by Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt Ltd before the Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh high courts.
The Centre stated that the petitions all raised identical legal concerns regarding the 2025 Act, which made it essential to consolidate them under one constitutional forum. It underlined that the pending challenges invoked violations of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), and Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitions also contended that Parliament lacked legislative competence to pass such a law, given India’s federal framework. They further alleged that the legislation did not differentiate between games of skill and games of chance, while its definition of “online money games” was unconstitutional.
The Union government insisted that leaving the matter with multiple high courts would cause conflicting legal interpretations and confusion nationwide. It cautioned that inconsistent rulings could waste judicial time and compromise the expectation of uniformity in constitutional adjudication. The petition also pointed out that the Act applied across India, extending even to services operated outside the country but accessible to Indian users. Therefore, the Centre said, only the Supreme Court could deliver a decisive ruling.
The plea additionally warned that more stakeholders were likely to challenge the Act in the future. Hence, centralising all litigation was necessary to maintain coherence. It requested the Supreme Court not just to take over the pending cases but also to halt hearings in all concerned high courts until the transfer plea was resolved.
The Centre’s approach followed its defence of the law in different high courts, where it argued that once Parliament had passed a law and the President had given assent, its notification was a “constitutional function” beyond judicial restraint. Enacted in August, the law introduces a complete prohibition on real-money gaming platforms and related advertisements while encouraging e-Sports and casual online games. Service providers violating the law may face up to three years’ imprisonment and fines of ₹1 crore, while advertisers risk penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of ₹50 lakh.
On August 30, SG Mehta told the Karnataka high court that implementation of the Act could not be halted merely because “one particular individual” was affected. He underlined that once the law had cleared Parliament and obtained presidential assent, courts had no power to delay its enforcement. When asked if notification was imminent, he replied that it could happen “soon” though he lacked formal instructions. His submissions were made during a plea by Head Digital Works, the parent of online rummy and poker platform A23, which argued that the law wrongly ignored the distinction between skill-based and chance-based games. The Karnataka high court then issued notice to the Union government and fixed a deadline of September 8 for its response.
On September 2, the Centre informed the Delhi high court that the Act would be notified shortly, after which a statutory authority would be created to classify online games and frame necessary rules. Solicitor general Mehta told the bench led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that while the government supported general online gaming, “online money games” had been linked to child addiction and even suicides. The Delhi case came from Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, which developed a fee-based online version of carrom offering pooled rewards to winners. The company argued that without regulatory clarity from the yet-to-be-formed authority, its business prospects remained uncertain.
