In less than a month when the new legislation came into being, upon petitions seen in various High Courts, the Central government has moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of cases challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The law has been challenged by various petitioners before three different High Courts and the Centre has sought transfer of all of those cases to the Supreme Court to avoid multiplicity of litigation.A Union government counsel today mentioned the transfer plea before Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing next week.
"Union has filed a transfer plea... Online Gaming Regulation Act has been challenged before three High Courts. If it can be listed on Monday since it's listed for interim orders before the Karnataka High Court," the counsel said.CJI Gavai agreed to list the case.The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is the first Central legislation to impose a nationwide prohibition on online games played for stakes.
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, passed by voice vote in both Houses within two days, and received Presidential assent on August 22.The law criminalises offering or playing online money games, irrespective of whether they are games of skill or chance, with offences classified as cognisable and non-bailable.The three petitions challenging the law were filed before Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.On September 3, the Madhya Pradesh High Court asked the Union government to respond to a plea challenging the plea.
Similarly, Karnataka High Court last week sought the Union government’s response to a plea by Head Digital. An online carrom game platform also moved the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the Act.The petition by the Central government before the Supreme Court has outlined the following key grounds for seeking consolidation of the cases before the Supreme Court.
With challenges filed across multiple High Courts, the Centre has argued that the petitions raise the same or substantially similar questions of law concerning the validity of the Online Gaming Act.Different High Courts may arrive at inconsistent findings on the same Central legislation, which could create legal uncertainty. Thus, a consolidated hearing before the Supreme Court would ensure uniformity of judicial pronouncements, it has been argued.As per the transfer plea, the case involves issues related to Constitution including questions on violation of Articles 14 and 19, conflict between Centre and States and Treats games of skill at par with games of chance.
These issues, the government has contended, are of general public importance and warrant an authoritative ruling from the Supreme Court.The Centre has also filed an application for ad-interim ex-parte stay of the proceedings before the High Courts. It has argued that continuation of multiple cases simultaneously would cause delay and prejudice, whereas transfer would allow for a speedy and final resolution.
Follow us
