The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the Union of India in response to a petition filed challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the recently enacted Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The development came as the court considered a plea filed by petitioners K. Anand and another, who argued that the Act, in its present form, imposes arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions on online skill-based games.
The petitioners specifically contested Sections 2(1)(g) and 5 of the Act. Section 2(1)(g) defines "online money games," while Section 5 prohibits online money games, including those played with monetary stakes, and places restrictions on the use of banking and financial services for such games. According to the petitioners, these provisions extend beyond Parliament’s legislative competence, as they attempt to regulate and restrict games of skill, which fall within the ambit of individual rights protected under the Constitution.
The petition claimed that the impugned provisions infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. By including online skill games within the definition of prohibited money games, the law, according to the petitioners, violates the right to equality, the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to practice any profession, and the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioners stressed that skill games, whether or not played for stakes, have consistently been treated differently from games of chance by judicial precedents, and therefore cannot be indiscriminately banned or restricted under the guise of regulation.
As interim relief, the petitioners requested the High Court to stay the operation of the contested provisions in relation to online skill-based games until the matter is finally decided. The petitioners argued that without such protection, the continuation of their businesses and operations in the online skill gaming sector would be severely affected, resulting in irreparable loss.
During the hearing, the Solicitor General appeared before the court on behalf of the Union government and informed the bench that a transfer petition had been filed before the Supreme Court. This transfer petition sought to consolidate and move all challenges pending before various High Courts across the country against the new law to the Supreme Court, so that the matter could be adjudicated uniformly. In view of this submission, the High Court adjourned the hearing until Thursday, giving time for clarity on the transfer proceedings.
The court had earlier heard a similar challenge filed by Head Digital Works, the operator of the A23 Rummy platform, which also questioned the provisions of the Act on similar grounds. That petition, like the present one, argued that online skill games had been wrongly categorized alongside games of chance, leading to restrictions that were unconstitutional.
By issuing notice to the Union and scheduling an early hearing, the Karnataka High Court signaled the importance of the constitutional questions raised in the case, while also acknowledging that the Supreme Court may soon take up the matter for a unified decision.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.