Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on November 6 postponed the batch of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 ("Online Gaming Act"), which seeks to prohibit 'online money games' and the offering of bank services, advertisements, etc. related thereto. It has asked the Union Government to file a comprehensive reply.

Before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, Senior Advocate CA Sundaram briefly mentioned that he was under the impression that the Union had filed a reply. He submitted that their business has been shut for a month now and the Court needs to hear these petitions with some urgency. The bench, noting that the Union is yet to file a comprehensive reply, asked Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman to do the needful.

One counsel mentioned another petition filed by a chess player, who has filed a petition against the Online Gaming Act. As per the counsel, the chess player earns his livelihood through these platforms, and the ban would impact his career. He said: "We have filed a fresh writ petition but it's not listed today. I am a chessplayer who plays the game, and it's a source of livelihood, and I was also about to launch an app."

On this, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked: "India is a strange country. You are a player, you want to play, and it's your only source of income and therefore, you want to join the proceedings. Is this betting or gambling? How do you raise the income?"

The counsel responded that the player participates in the tournaments. Justice Pardiwala responded that it should not be an issue if the player plays tournaments because tournaments are excluded from the ban. "Then there is no problem, they do not object to the tournaments. Tournaments are completely excluded."

ASG responded that the player does not play regular tournaments. The Counsel also clarified that the player participates in tournaments that are organised by these companies involved in online money games. He said: " I pay participation fees and take a price."

Justice Pardiwala responded orally that this falls within betting and gambling only. The Court anyway allowed the petition to be tagged in the main matter.

There is another petition listed before the bench, which seeks to protect the data of children collected by online gaming companies and calls for a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Online Gaming Act and laws made by state legislatures to prohibit online gambling and betting games operating in the guise of social and e-sports games. The petition filed by Centre for Accountability Systemic Changes has also sought blocking orders against all unlawful betting and gambling platforms in India.

The petitioner has sought a direction to issue blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act against all unlawful betting and gambling platforms in India, as well as a mandamus directing the RBI, NPCI, and other UPI platforms not to allow any transactions of online money that are not registered in India.

The Court will hear the matter on November 26.

Details: UNION OF INDIA v HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR|T.P.(C) No. 2484-2486/2025