SC seeks Centre’s detailed response on pleas against online gaming law
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to file a comprehensive reply on petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which bans all online money games. The matter will be heard next on November 26
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to file a comprehensive reply on petitions challenging an online gaming law which prohibits “online money games”, and bars banking services and advertising related to them.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan was informed that the Centre has filed its reply on the interim prayer made in the pleas.
“We want the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union to file a comprehensive reply to the main petition itself,” the bench said.
It said copy of the reply be served in advance to the advocates appearing for the petitioners and if they want to file any rejoinder, they may do so at the earliest. The bench posted the matter for hearing on November 26.
\The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is the first central legislation banning real-money online gaming, including fantasy sports and e-sports played for stakes and has faced challenges before the Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh high courts.
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing in the matter, told the bench that the business was completely shut for over a month. During the hearing, one of the advocates told the bench that a fresh writ petition was filed in the matter but it was not listed for hearing.
“I (petitioner) am a chess player and its a source of livelihood. I was also about to launch an app,” the lawyer said. “India is a strange country. You are a player. You want to play. It’s your only source of income and therefore, you want to join the proceedings,” Justice Pardiwala observed.
The counsel said the petitioner participates in online tournaments organised by the companies and he pays a participation fee also. The bench said his plea be also tagged with the pending petitions.
The top court was hearing a batch of transferred petitions challenging the online gaming law. The bench said a separate petition, which has sought directions to the government to prohibit online gambling and betting platforms that allegedly operate under the guise of social and e-sports games, would also be heard on November 26.
The top court on Monday had sought response of the Centre on the plea filed by the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) and Shourya Tiwari.
The petitioners argue that the Act imposes a blanket ban even on judicially recognised skill-based games, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on lawful trade.\
The Karnataka High Court had recently issued notice in another related petition. On September 8, the top court had allowed a plea by the Centre to transfer the petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 from three high courts to the apex court to avoid conflicting verdicts.
It had transferred the petitions pending before the Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh high courts, to the apex court. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) filed the plea for transfer of three pending cases from the high courts to the apex court.
“Due to multiple litigations pending before various high courts involving 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 plea said.
It said after the law got the President’s assent, multiple petitions were filed in the high courts challenging the validity of the Act.The law prohibited offering or playing online money games, regardless of whether they are games of skill or chance, and categorised violations as cognisable and non-bailable offences.
It was passed within two days by voice vote in both Houses of Parliament and received presidential assent on August 22.
