Supreme Court to hear challenge to Online Gaming Act, pulls cases from three High Courts

The Online Gaming Act, notified on August 22, is the first central legislation to outlaw online real-money games across India, irrespective of whether they are classified as games of skill or chance. It makes participation or offering of such games a cognisable and non-bailable offence

The Supreme Court has taken over petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, moving them out of the High Courts of Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, Bar & Bench reported.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the Centre’s plea to transfer all pending challenges to itself, observing that a consolidated hearing would avoid duplication and delay.

“This Act has been challenged before three High Courts. If the cases are brought here, it will save considerable time,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, told the court, according to Bar & Bench.

Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for one of the petitioners, supported the move. “We will be happy if the matter is decided here and brought to a finality … therefore, my lords please transfer,” he said.

Granting the transfer, the Supreme Court directed the three High Courts to send their case records digitally within a week. “Once the records are before us, the registry shall place the matter at the earliest,” the Bench ordered, as per Bar & Bench.

The Online Gaming Act, notified on August 22, is the first central legislation to outlaw online real-money games across India, irrespective of whether they are classified as games of skill or chance. It makes participation or offering of such games a cognisable and non-bailable offence.

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20 and passed within two days, the law marks a departure from earlier regulation of the gaming sector, which was largely shaped by State enactments and court rulings distinguishing games of skill from gambling.

Multiple online platforms, including Head Digital and other operators, approached different High Courts arguing that the law disproportionately infringes rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had already sought the Centre’s response on a challenge, while the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts were seized of similar petitions, Bar & Bench noted.

In its plea before the apex court, the Union government stressed that consolidation was necessary to avoid conflicting verdicts and ensure uniformity on issues of constitutional significance, including federal powers, equal treatment of skill and chance games, and the scope of fundamental rights.

The Centre also requested that the proceedings in the High Courts be kept in abeyance until the Supreme Court decided the transfer, Bar & Bench reported.