High Court issues notice to Centre over petition against Online Gaming Act
The Karnataka High Court has sought the Centre’s reply to a petition challenging the Online Gaming Act, 2025. Petitioners argued that sudden implementation would threaten jobs and investments, while the Union government maintained that courts should not interfere with the legislative process
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday sought the Union government’s response to a petition challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which petitioners argue threatens to wipe out the livelihood of thousands of people overnight.
The matter was heard by Justice B M Shyam Prasad, who granted time to the Centre to file its reply while allowing the petitioners to submit detailed arguments in support of their plea for an interim stay on the Act’s operation.
Senior counsel representing the petitioners contended that although the Act had received Presidential assent, it had not yet been notified. He argued that immediate implementation would deal a severe blow to the industry.
“If this industry is shut down overnight, the consequences will be serious. The government should either withhold notification until we are heard, or at least provide one week’s notice so we can approach the court,” counsel submitted.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said this was the first time a court would be scrutinising the competence of such legislation, given its cross-border implications. He added that once Parliament passes a law and it receives Presidential assent, notification is part of the constitutional process.
“Courts may not interfere at this stage. Merely because an individual feels aggrieved, it does not mean the government is required to give advance notice before notifying the law,” he argued.
When asked whether the Centre intended to notify the law immediately, the SG said he would seek instructions. The court then adjourned the matter, directing the Union to place its response along with the petitioner’s submissions seeking interim relief.
The petitioners have challenged the Online Gaming Act because it was enacted without consultation or deliberation, despite the government’s earlier promotion of the online skill-gaming industry. They contended that the sudden shift risks crores of rupees in investments and threatens the livelihood of over two lakh employees in the sector.
The plea relies on Supreme Court precedent affirming that skill-based games involving stakes are a legitimate business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It argues that a blanket ban is neither proportionate nor the least restrictive means available, and is therefore unconstitutional.
The petition further alleges that the Act is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21, including freedom of expression, the right to livelihood, and the right to carry on trade.
