The Karnataka High Court has initiated judicial proceedings concerning a petition that challenges the constitutional validity of the newly enacted Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. In its preliminary hearing, the court formally directed the Union government to file its response to the plea. The petitioners assert that the legislation, if implemented, threatens to eliminate the livelihoods of thousands of individuals, setting the stage for a significant legal examination of the Act’s provisions.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The matter was heard by Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad, who addressed the petitioners’ urgent request for an interim stay on the Act’s operation. While granting time to the Union government to submit its reply, the court also permitted the petitioners to present detailed arguments for immediate relief. Senior counsel representing the petitioners focused on the Act’s current status, noting that although it has received Presidential assent, it has not yet been officially notified. The core argument was that the Act’s sudden implementation would inflict a severe blow upon the industry.
Counsel submitted that if the industry is forced to shut down overnight, the consequences would be serious and irreversible. A formal request was made for the government to either withhold the notification until the petitioners are heard or provide at least one week’s notice. This would allow them a necessary window to approach the court again to press for a formal stay on the Act’s operation.
The Government’s Position
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented a counter-argument rooted in constitutional procedure. He contended that once Parliament passes a law and it receives the President’s assent, the subsequent notification is a natural part of the executive process. The Solicitor General argued that it would be improper for the judiciary to interfere at this pre-notification stage. He further submitted that the mere fact that an individual feels aggrieved does not create a legal requirement for the government to issue advance notice.
The Solicitor General also highlighted the novelty of the legal challenge, noting this would be the first instance of a court scrutinizing such legislation’s competence. When the bench inquired about the Centre’s immediate plans for notifying the Act, he stated that he would need to seek specific instructions. Following these initial submissions, the court adjourned the matter, formally directing the Union to file its response to the petition.
Constitutional Grounds of the Challenge
The petition assails the Online Gaming Act, 2025, as being arbitrary and violative of several fundamental rights under the Constitution. It is alleged that the legislation was enacted without adequate consultation or deliberation, representing a stark reversal of prior government policy. This abrupt shift, the plea claims, places at grave risk substantial investments and threatens the employment of over two lakh individuals.
The petitioners have anchored their legal challenge in established Supreme Court precedents that affirm skill-based games involving stakes as a legitimate business under Article 19(1)(g). The plea contends that the Act imposes a blanket ban that is neither proportionate nor the least restrictive means available to achieve its objectives. Consequently, it is asserted that the Act is unconstitutional for infringing upon the rights to equality, freedom of expression, and the right to carry on trade under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21.
