New Delhi – The Supreme Court on Monday transferred to itself all petitions pending before various high courts that challenge the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the Centre’s transfer plea and made it clear that no high court will hear fresh challenges to the law. “The transfer petition is allowed and the proceedings are transferred to this court,” the order stated.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that at least three high courts — Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh — were hearing petitions against the Act. He emphasised the need for centralisation to avoid conflicting judicial decisions. The government moved the petition through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
The petitions before the high courts were filed by Head Digital Works Pvt Ltd, Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt Ltd, and Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Pvt Ltd. They contend that the law violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, and that Parliament lacks legislative competence given the federal scheme. They also argue the Act ignores the long-standing distinction between games of skill and games of chance.
The Centre stressed that conflicting rulings from multiple high courts could create confusion and undermine legal certainty. It underlined that the law applies nationwide, including to gaming companies operating from abroad, and its constitutional validity must be settled by the apex court.
The Act, passed in August, bans real-money online games and related advertisements while promoting e-Sports and casual online gaming. It prescribes up to three years’ imprisonment and fines of ₹1 crore for service providers, and up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of ₹50 lakh for advertisers.
During earlier hearings, the government argued that once Parliament has passed a law and the President has given assent, its notification is a constitutional function beyond judicial restraint. Mehta also told courts that “online money games” had been linked to addiction and suicides, justifying the ban.
The case will next be heard on September 15, with the Supreme Court examining the validity of the controversial law.
