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

Central Government’s Plea for Transfer

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Central government’s petition to transfer multiple cases challenging the online gaming law—the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025—from different High Courts to itself. The Union of India argued that the matter involved important constitutional issues that should be decided by the apex court rather than fragmented across various jurisdictions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, “This is a challenge to the Act before three High Courts. If they can be called here, it would save time.”

No Objection from Gaming Companies

The gaming operators who had moved different High Courts did not oppose the transfer. Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram, representing Head Digital, welcomed the move. He said, “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.”

The Bench then allowed the transfer petition, directing the High Courts of Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh to transmit the case records within one week, preferably in digital format. The Court added that once the records are received, the registry would list the matter for an early hearing.

Provisions of the Online Gaming Law

The online gaming law, notified on August 22, 2025, marks the first nationwide prohibition on online games played for stakes. The law makes it a criminal offence—whether for games of skill or games of chance—to offer or participate in such activities. Importantly, offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable.

The Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20 and passed in both Houses of Parliament within two days by voice vote. It quickly received Presidential assent, signaling the Centre’s intent to impose uniform regulation in an area previously governed by State-level laws and judicial rulings that differentiated between games of skill and chance.

Constitutional Challenges in High Courts

Following its enactment, the law was challenged before multiple High Courts. Online platforms, including Head Digital and other gaming operators, argued that the online gaming law violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. They contended that the law unfairly equates skill-based games with chance-based games and imposes disproportionate restrictions on lawful business activities.

• On September 3, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice to the Union government in a plea questioning the Act.
• The Karnataka High Court, in a case filed by Head Digital, also sought the Centre’s response last week.
• An online carrom platform filed a similar challenge in the Delhi High Court.

Centre’s Grounds for Transfer

In its plea, the Union of India argued that transferring all petitions to the Supreme Court was necessary for several reasons:

• Multiplicity of Proceedings: Parallel hearings before three High Courts risk inconsistent and conflicting judgments.
• Uniformity and Certainty: A consolidated decision by the apex court would ensure clarity and consistency in interpreting the central law.
• Constitutional Importance: The petitions involve significant questions, including alleged violations of Articles 14 and 19, federal distribution of powers, and the classification of skill-based versus chance-based games.
• Expeditious Justice: Fragmented proceedings could cause delays and prejudice. A single hearing before the Supreme Court would streamline the process.

The Centre also sought an interim stay on the High Court proceedings until the transfer petition was decided.

Significance of the Ruling

By transferring all cases to itself, the Supreme Court has ensured that the validity of the online gaming law will be examined in a uniform and authoritative manner. The ruling underscores the Court’s role in resolving disputes involving nationwide legislation, especially when fundamental rights and economic freedoms are at stake.

The matter will now be listed before the Supreme Court for a comprehensive hearing, where arguments on the constitutional validity of the online gaming law will be addressed in detail.