Supreme Court to decide validity of online gaming law, transfers cases from 3 High Courts to itself

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by Central government seeking transfer of the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 pending before different High Courts [Union of India Vs Head Digita].

The Central government approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of petitions pending before three different High Courts to the apex court.

"This is a challenge to the Act challenged before three High Courts. If they can be called here, it would save time," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government.

The gaming companies who had challenged the law did not oppose the same.

"We will be very happy if we get a finality if the Court hears it. I had pressed for interim order, therefore my lords please transfer," Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram on behalf of Head Digital.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan then proceeded to allow the government's transfer petition.

"This transfer petition is at the instance of Union of India. The transfer as prayed for is allowed. 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. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of. Once entire records are transferred, the registry shall do the needful and list it before the Court at the earliest. If the parties intend to file the writ petition with the entire record. They may do so with the registry," the Court ordered.

The Act, which was notified on August 22, is the first central law to impose a nationwide prohibition on online games played for stakes. It criminalises offering or participating in such games—whether classified as games of skill or chance—with offences being cognisable and non-bailable.

The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, passed by voice vote in both Houses within two days and quickly received Presidential assent. The law represents a significant shift in the regulation of the online gaming sector previously governed largely by State-level legislation and judicial pronouncements distinguishing games of skill from games of chance.

The Act then faced multiple constitutional challenges before the Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.

Petitioners include online platforms such as Head Digital and other gaming operators who moved the High Courts arguing that the law disproportionately curtails fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

On September 3, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice to the Union government in a plea challenging the Act.

The Karnataka High Court, in a petition filed by Head Digital, also sought the Centre’s response last week.

An online carrom platform moved the Delhi High Court with a similar challenge.

In its plea before the Supreme Court, the Centre argued that the matter should be heard by the Supreme Court. It raised the following grounds:

• Multiplicity of Proceedings: Similar questions of law are being considered by different High Courts, risking conflicting judgments.

• Uniformity and Certainty: A consolidated hearing in the Supreme Court would ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements on a central legislation.

• Constitutional Importance: The issues involve key constitutional questions—alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19, federal division of powers, and the treatment of skill-based games at par with chance-based games.

• Expeditious Justice: Multiple parallel proceedings could lead to delay and prejudice; consolidation would allow for speedy resolution.

The Union also sought an ad-interim stay of the proceedings before the High Courts until the Supreme Court decides on the transfer petition.