Supreme Court transfers online gaming law challenges from high courts to itself

The Supreme Court seeking on Monday transferred petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, pending before various high courts to the top court for expeditious adjudication.

“The proceedings from Karnataka High Court, Delhi High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court stand transferred to this court. The respective high courts are requested to transfer the entire record within a period of one week from today. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time,” bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan said, allowing the Centre’s transfer plea.

“This is a challenge to the Act before three high courts. If they can be called here, it would save time,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the bench.

“We will be very happy if we get a finality if the (top) court hears it. I had pressed for an interim order, therefore My Lords please transfer…,” senior counsel C Aryama Sundaram submitted on behalf of the petitioner gaming companies.

Citing multiplicity of litigation, the Centre had on September 4 moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. Passed by the Parliament in the recently concluded Monsoon session on August 21, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 received the Presidential Assent on August 22.

It is the first central legislation imposing a nationwide ban on real-money online gaming, including popular formats such as fantasy sports. It prohibits offering or playing online money games, regardless of whether they are games of skill or chance, and categorises violations as cognisable and non-bailable offences.

The Act has been challenged before the high courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka, mainly on the ground that it prohibits even games of skill and not mere games of chance, especially e-sports.

The petitioners have also contended that the Act put a blanket prohibition on judicially recognised skill-based games, thus violating Article 19(1)(g) which guaranteed fundamental right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.