The Union government has informed the Delhi High Court that the long-awaited regulatory framework for online gaming will soon be operationalized. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Centre, stated that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, will be notified shortly, paving the way for the creation of an authority tasked with overseeing the sector and formulating detailed rules.
Mehta emphasized the government’s dual stance: it supports the development of online gaming as a whole but draws a strict line when money is involved. “We are in the process of framing Rules and contemplating constituting the authority also. The government is promoting online gaming. We are not against it. But online money gaming results in addiction in children, suicides etc,” he told a bench led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Government Assurances and Pending Notification
Although the law secured the assent of President Droupadi Murmu in August, it has yet to be formally notified. Mehta clarified that once the notification under Section 1(3) is issued, the authority will be set up and rules will be introduced. Until then, the Act cannot be enforced.
The Delhi bench reminded Bagheera Carrom (OPC), the petitioner challenging the Act, that no prosecution can take place at present. “Unless a notification is issued, this Act cannot come into being… your apprehension that you will be prosecuted is not live as of today,” the Chief Justice observed. The court further noted that concerns from industry players might be resolved once the rules are made public and adjourned the case for eight weeks.
Mehta also acknowledged the court’s hypothetical query about e-sports, stressing that regulatory clarity will only follow once the authority is established and regulations are finalized.
Industry Pushback and Legal Objections
Bagheera Carrom, which developed an online carrom platform, argues that the Act was introduced “in haste, without stakeholder consultation and in violation of the fundamental rights, due process of law, federal principles, and the doctrine of separation of powers.” Its petition calls the law “ultra vires, unconstitutional, arbitrary, vague, disproportionate, violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution,” and contends that it goes beyond the legislative power of Parliament.
The company has sought either the annulment of the Act or, alternatively, a narrowing of key definitions—such as “online money game” and “e-sports”—to align with earlier judicial rulings that upheld skill-based games as legal. It insists that the law unfairly imposes a blanket ban covering all money-based online games, regardless of whether they involve skill or chance.
In its submission, Bagheera highlighted that carrom is recognized as a skill game by national and international federations and that it has invested significantly in compliance and responsible gaming measures. Despite safeguards such as certification from the e-gaming federation confirming the platform’s non-betting and bot-free nature, the company claims that the Act threatens to criminalize legitimate business activity. According to its petition, vague and overlapping definitions create “legal uncertainty, a chilling effect, and expos[e]
genuine businesses like the Petitioner to penal consequences without fair warning.”
Multiple Challenges and the Supreme Court’s Role
Bagheera Carrom is not alone in opposing the Act. Head Digital Works, operator of rummy and poker brand A23, has contested the “complete ban” before the Karnataka High Court. Similarly, Clubboom11 Sports & Entertainment, which runs a fantasy sports platform Boom11, filed a case in the Madhya Pradesh High Court arguing that fantasy games have long been recognized as skill-based and should be regulated, not outlawed.
Given these parallel proceedings, the Centre has asked the Supreme Court to transfer all pending cases from the three high courts into a single consolidated hearing. The Union government, through its petition, maintained that allowing multiple courts to decide on the same issues risks contradictory judgments. Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai confirmed that the plea to centralize the litigation will be considered on September 8.
The government’s filing emphasized that all challenges to the law raise questions about its compatibility with Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as India’s federal structure. Petitioners also argue that the Act wrongly eliminates the distinction between games of skill and chance. To avoid inconsistent rulings and further uncertainty for the sector, the Centre is seeking an authoritative decision from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the 2025 Act.
Source:
Govt to frame rules, set up authority under Online Gaming Act soon, Centre tells Delhi HC, economictimes.indiatimes.com, September 3, 2025
