Karnataka High Court Calls For Centre's Response On Plea Challenging Online Gaming Bill 2025

The Karnataka High Court has called for the centre's response on a plea challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, over allegations that the bill takes away the livelihood of thousands of people 'overnight'.

Justice B M Shyam Prasad heard the matter and adjourned it, allowing the centre to file its response, and for the petitioners to file their points seeking an interim stay of the operation of the bill.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the challenge is to the Act. It was argued that the Act has received the assent of the President, but was not yet notified, affecting the employment of lakhs of people.

"It is my concern if this industry has closed overnight there will be a serious backlash. Let them file their reply and let them not notify the Act till we are heard. Or give a weeks notice before notifying the Act so that we can come to court," it was submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union submitted that this was the first time the court would be examining the competence of this legislation, which has transborder implication. 

"Once President has given assent notifying is a constitutional process and courts may not interfere. Once Parliament passes a legislation, the assent of President having been satisfied, merely because some individual is aggrieved we need not inform him in advance that we will be notifying the law," the SG submitted.

When asked if the centre planned to notify the Act immediately, the SG submitted that he would have to take instructions on the same.

Accordingly, the court adjourned the matter, calling for the Union's response and the points raised by the petitioner seeking interim stay.

Background

The plea claims that the Act has been passed without any consultation, or deliberation, and is contrary to the avowed policy of the Respondent, who, till the enactment of the Impugned Act actively promoted and encouraged the online skill gaming sector.

It states that this abrupt action has resulted in the potential disruption of employment of employees of the petitioner, and crores of rupees in investment in the Petitioner company being lost overnight, but also potential loss of livelihood of over two lakh employees across the sector.

It states that as established by the Supreme Court, it is settled law that games of skill (involving risking of money or otherwise) are not res-extra commercium but are a legitimate business activity protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, the State cannot completely prohibit such activities and any restrictions placed on these activities must be proportionate and reasonable, within the parameters of Article 19(6).

The plea claims that the prohibition imposed is not proportional, or the least restrictive step that could be taken, and is not protected by any of the grounds enumerated in Article 19(6). The Impugned Act is manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act imposes a restriction on freedom of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a), and is violative of the right to livelihood and choice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case title: Head Digital Works Private Limited and Anr v/s Union of India