In August 2025, the Indian Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (Online Money Gaming Act), representing a significant shift in the regulation of the digital gaming sector. This legislation imposes a comprehensive ban on all forms of online gaming involving real money, irrespective of whether the games are based on skill or chance.

Subsequently, different affected parties approached the Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi high courts challenging the Online Money Gaming Act:

• Karnataka High Court: The first challenge was mounted by Head Digital Works Private Limited, the parent company of gaming platform A23, on August 28, 2025. The petition argues that the Online Money Gaming Act is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(g) (right to practice profession or business), and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution, and lacks legislative competence by failing to differentiate skill-based games. During the initial hearing on August 30, 2025, the court declined to grant an interim stay on the Act’s enforcement.
• Delhi High Court: Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Private Limited filed a petition asserting that the ban is ultra vires, infringes fundamental rights, and criminalises legitimate skill-based activities like online carrom. In a hearing on September 3, 2025, before a bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, stated that the government was in the process of setting up an authority under the Online Money Gaming Act. Matter was directe to be listed after eight weeks.
• Madhya Pradesh High Court: Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment Private Limited has challenged the Online Money Gaming Act on similar grounds, highlighting its potential to disrupt the industry and violate constitutional protections. It argued that fantasy sports has already been recognised as a legitimate activity by the Supreme Court as well as several high courts, and therefore, the appropriate course for the government is to regulate the sector instead of banning it. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf issued notice and adjourned the matter to October 28, 2025.

Supreme Court

The Union of India has approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the High Court cases to the Supreme Court. These matters were mentioned by the SG Mehta before the Chief Justice of India on September 5, 2025, who directed to list the matter before the bench presided over by Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The Centre argues:

Due to multiple litigations pending before various HCs involving same or substantially similar questions of law and challenging the vires of the Act, it is imperative that these are transferred to SC or to any HC to avoid divergence of opinions or multiplicity of proceedings.

The transfer petitions were listed before the Supreme Court’s bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan on September 8, 2025. The Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petitions with a direction to the high courts to transfer the case records to the SC within one week. SC’s registry has been asked to list the matters before it once the files have been received.

Next Date: To be Updated.