MP High Court Issues Notice To Centre On Plea Seeking To Exempt 'Fantasy Sports' From New Law Regulating Online Money Games

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (September 3) issued notice on a plea challenging Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 claiming that it puts a blanket prohibition on "online money games" including judicially recognised skill-based games, infringing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment Private Ltd against the Act claiming that it "disregards the settled distinction between games of skill and games of chance, overrides binding judicial pronouncements, and in doing so, transgresses the constitutional limitations on legislative power". 

After hearing the matter for some time a division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf said:

"Issue notice. Satyendra Dixit accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent and prays for time to file a counter affidavit. Let the same be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, before the next date of hearing. List on 28th October". 

During the hearing Senior Advocate Gopal Jain, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there was a constitutional infirmity as far as "fantasy sports" are concerned.

He said that fantasy sports have been legally recognised by various high courts and has been affirmed by Supreme Court in catena of cases. He contended that fantasy sports can be regulated and not prohibited whereas the mandate of the Act is an absolute and complete and prohibition. 

On the court's query SG Mehta said that similar challenges are ongoing in the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. He informed that notices were issued in these cases and the matters are pending. 

"Nothing before the Supreme Court?" the court asked. 

"I am considering moving a transfer petition that it should be heard by either Supreme Court or one particular court to avoid any conflicting judgments," SG Mehta said. 

Meanwhile Jain pressed for interim relief and argued,

"In our case, there is a slight difference. Just kindly note one thing. These are fantasy sports, judicially recognized and also recognized in the proposed rules they were bringing under the Information Technology Act number one. Therefore, my lord, once it has legal and judicial sanctity, taking coercive steps is what I am requesting today from my interim arrangement point of view, till the court decides the matter, no coercive steps must be taken"

On the court's query the Mehta said that the Act had prohibited only online gaming involving monetary returns. He said:

'Not Sports. We have prohibited online gaming involving monetary returns; that is what is prohibited. If you are in online gaming there is nothing, there is no difficulty. But if I am getting, kind of a, into a betting that if I win I pay 10 rupees, and if I win I will get one lakh; that is prohibited. And there is a long preface in the statement of objections and reasons that people are addicted to debt, people commit suicide, etc'. 

The court then orally said:

"Mr Jain, what you are seeking is that we are not seeking the stay of the Act, but we are seeking the stay of coercive action, meaning thereby that we will infringe the Act, go contrary to the Act, but don't take coercive action against us. That can't be an interim protection. Let them file a response, we will consider it".  

Jain argued that the Act mentions itself the need to "clearly delineate and categorise various forms of online gaming to provide a tailored legal framework to each subcategory of the industry appropriately". He argued that arguing that fantasy sports should fall into a regulated, not prohibited, category.

The court then said as to why the petitioners were worried if they believed that they were in an exempted category. Jain said that the petitioner should have been given the recognition but has not been given the same. 

The plea asserts that fantasy sports do not constitute gambling and, therefore, should not be classified as such. Referring to a NITI Aayog report of December 2020, it states that there were recommendations for the recognition of fantasy sports as a distinct category. Citing the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (Amended) Rules, 2023, it was asserted that these rules explicitly addressed the regulation of online gaming intermediaries that facilitate 'games of skill'.

The matter is next listed on October 28. 

Case Title: Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment Private Ltd v Union of India

(WRIT PETITION (WP) 34900/2025)