Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan had allowed the transfer petition and ordered thus, “The transfer petition is allowed and the proceedings are transferred to this court. We make it clear that no

”

Search

TOP STORIES

NEWS UPDATES
COLUMNS
BAR SPEAKS
ARTICLES
CARTOONS
VIDEOS
More

Home/Top Stories
Challenge to Online Gaming Act: SC to Hear After Diwali; Petitioners Say Law Shuts Down Industry

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Online Gaming Act, 2025 after Diwali

By –
Sukriti Mishra
|
7 Oct 2025 12:09 PM
Petitioners submitted that the online gaming ban cripples business; Centre defended legislative powers as Supreme Court sets hearing for November 4
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a batch of petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which prohibits real-money online gaming across the country.

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was hearing the matter when Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, urged for an early hearing, stating, “This has national ramifications and my business is shut down.”

Also Read – Supreme Court asks Centre to formulate scheme to rehabilitate medically discharged cadets
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, informed the Court that a reply had been filed, while Sundaram clarified that the response was only to the interim application and not to the main matter.

When the Bench noted possible overlaps with the GST-related proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkataraman said the only common issue concerned the Union’s legislative powers. Sundaram, however, emphasized that he was not questioning the Union’s competence but challenging the constitutionality of the Act itself.

Also Read – Attack on CJI| Lawyer calls BCI suspension ‘despotic’, says he was not heard
The Bench said the case may be placed before the Chief Justice since it had earlier heard the GST-related matter.

The Court directed completion of pleadings in all petitions transferred from various High Courts and ordered that the matter be listed after the Diwali break, on November 4.

Previously, on September 26, after a mentioning was made before the Court seeking urgent listing of the petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. CJI BR Gavai had agreed to list the same. “Our businesses have been shut down, our petition was before the Karnataka High Court which has been transferred here at the instance of the Centre..please list it urgently..”, a counsel appearing before the CJI’s bench had submitted.

Also Read – Activist Seeks AG Consent for Criminal Contempt Against Aniruddhacharya, Ajeet Bharti Over Threats to CJI Gavai
Recently, the Supreme Court had allowed the Centre’s petition to transfer cases pending before the High Courts challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan had allowed the transfer petition and ordered thus, “The transfer petition is allowed and the proceedings are transferred to this court. We make it clear that no other high court will entertain a challenge to the said law and proceedings will stand transferred to this court.”
Also Read – “Our Own Social Media Is Enough”: Justice Surya Kant’s Wry Take on Criticism of Judiciary During Bihar Voter Roll Hearing
Notably, petitions were filed before the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Karnataka. Just today, Karnataka High Court deferred the hearing writ petitions challenging the newly enacted Online Gaming Act, 2025, noting that the Centre has moved to consolidate similar challenges before the Supreme Court.

Karnataka High Court had deferred the hearing writ petitions challenging the newly enacted Online Gaming Act, 2025, noting that the Centre had moved to consolidate similar challenges before the Supreme Court. Head Digital Works, the parent company of A23, challenged the validity of the Act in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it violated fundamental constitutional rights, including the freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g), and infringed on the established legal distinction between games of skill and games of chance.

Union government had told the Delhi High Court that it is in