The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday directed the Union government to file a comprehensive reply to the main petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan posted the batch of petitions, including transferred cases from three High Courts, for hearing on November 26.
The court is seized of a batch of transferred petitions challenging the new central legislation, which prohibits “online money games” and bars associated banking services and advertising. The Act, which received Presidential assent on August 22, is described as the first central law to ban real-money online gaming, encompassing fantasy sports and e-sports played for stakes.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had previously filed a plea seeking the transfer of petitions pending before the Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts to the apex court to avoid conflicting verdicts. The Supreme Court allowed this transfer plea on September 8.
The petitioners argue that the Act imposes a blanket ban that includes judicially recognised skill-based games, allegedly violating the right to practice any profession or carry on lawful trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing in the matter, submitted to the bench that the petitioners’ business was “completely shut for over a month.”
The bench was also informed that a fresh writ petition, which was not listed, had been filed by a chess player. The advocate for the player stated, “I (petitioner) am a chess player and its a source of livelihood. I was also about to launch an app.” The counsel further explained that the petitioner participates in online tournaments organised by companies and pays a participation fee.
Separately, the court noted that another petition filed by the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) and Shourya Tiwari, seeking directions to prohibit online gambling and betting platforms allegedly operating “under the guise of social and e-sports games,” would also be taken up.
The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan, was informed that the Centre had filed its reply addressing the interim prayer made in the pleas.
However, the bench directed the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union to file a more comprehensive reply addressing the main petition itself. “We want the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union to file a comprehensive reply to the main petition itself,” the bench stated.
Upon hearing the submission regarding the chess player’s plea, Justice Pardiwala observed, “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.” The bench ordered that this plea be tagged with the pending batch of petitions.
The court directed that a copy of the Centre’s reply be served in advance to the petitioners’ advocates, who are at liberty to file a rejoinder. The bench posted all connected matters for hearing on November 26.
