नवीनतम
Centre moves SC to transfer HC pleas against Online Gaming Act
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: The Centre sought a direction from the Supreme Court on Thursday to transfer to itself pleas filed at various high courts challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, to avoid conflicting verdicts.
"The writ petitions challenging the same impugned act are pending before different high courts. There is a real possibility of conflicting judicial pronouncements, which create confusion and uncertainty regarding the validity and applicability of the impugned act across jurisdictions," the plea states.
A division bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed by the Centre's counsel that the said Act has been challenged before the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Delhi.
He urged the bench to list the matter for Monday, as it is listed for interim orders before the Karnataka High Court. After hearing his submissions, the CJI agreed to list the plea for consideration next week.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, is the first Central legislation imposing a nationwide ban on online real-money 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.
"It is submitted that on August 22, 2025, the President of India gave assent to the impugned act. Following the enactment of the impugned act, multiple writ petitions have been filed across various high courts challenging the vires of the impugned act," the Centre's plea reads.
"It is submitted that essentially the impugned act has raised the following relevant question of law inter alia: 1) Whether the impugned act violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution; 2) Whether the impugned act encroaches upon the legislative competence of the states under the federal structure; 3) Whether the impugned act fails to distinguish between games of skill and games of chance, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India; 4) Whether the definition of the online money games laid out under Section 2(1)(g) of the impugned act is overbroad, thereby violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," it adds.
The Centre contended that since the legislation has been challenged across different jurisdictions, it would be appropriate for the apex court to hear the cases together to ensure consistency and avoid multiplicity of litigation. "Due to multiple litigations pending before various high courts involving the same or substantially similar questions of law and challenging the vires of the same impugned act, the same must be transferred to this court or any high court to avoid any divergence of opinions or multiplicity of proceedings," the plea added.
The plea contended that the finality of judicial pronouncement is the foundation of the legal system, and the institution of multiple writ petitions founded upon the same or substantially similar facts before different high courts creates a tangible risk of divergent views, inconsistent interpretations, and contradictory appreciation of the evidentiary and legal materials placed before such courts.
"Such a situation would not only undermine the coherence of judicial pronouncements but also render illusory the litigants' legitimate expectation of obtaining a conclusive and uniform adjudication of the issues in controversy," it added.
