Author: Mitali Upadhyay, Satpura Lae College
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 mandates a blanket prohibition on online games involving monetary stakes—most notably skill-based games like poker and rummy—citing psychological and financial harm. This abrupt regulatory shift has triggered industry-wide shutdowns and prompted a major legal challenge by A23 in the Karnataka High Court, which contends the law violates constitutional protections and arbitrarily criminalizes lawful business activity .
Use of Legal Jargon
The Act constitutes sweeping legislative prohibition, branding formerly lawful platforms as illicit conduct and exposing operators to penal sanctions under criminal law. It imposes regulatory nullification upon existing licenses, effectively abrogating vested commercial rights. The litigation invokes constitutional scrutiny, alleging contravention of Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) and challenging state paternalism masquerading as moral oversight. The courts must adjudicate under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, ensuring due process and rule of law are upheld.
The Proof
Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 in August 2025; it has banned real-money gaming services, their advertisement, and related financial dealings .
Following its passage, several major gaming platforms—Zupee, Dream Sports, MPL—began discontinuing real-money gaming operations, citing the legislation’s disruptive effect .
In direct response, A23 (Head Digital Works) filed the first legal challenge in the Karnataka High Court on August 28, 2025, arguing the law criminalizes legitimate skill-based gaming and should be declared unconstitutional .
The court is scheduled to hear A23’s petition, signaling the commencement of judicial examination of the statute’s constitutional validity .
Abstract
This legal article explores the intersection of regulatory intent and constitutional safeguards following the enactment of India’s Pro-Online Gaming Act, 2025. Purporting to shield citizens—particularly youth—from gambling-related harms, the legislation enacts a sweeping ban that has halted a burgeoning industry previously projected to reach USD 3.6 billion by 2029. Yet, by categorically proscribing real-money gaming—including games of skill—the law raises serious legal concerns: Does the state have the legislative authority to extinguish commercial enterprise without nuanced differentiation between gambling and skill-based gaming? The ensuing litigation will test the boundaries of legislative overreach, the protection of trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g), and the jurisprudence surrounding arbitrariness and due process. This article outlines the regulatory developments, the legal challenges, and the broader implications for digital economy regulation in India.
Case Laws
While this is a fresh legal battleground, two precedents offer guiding jurisprudence:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, reinforcing that vague laws and overbroad censorship infringe upon free speech rights. The judgment also narrowed the liability of intermediaries under Section 79, insisting on judicial or governmental orders for takedown, mitigating arbitrary enforcement .
Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2024) – The Bombay High Court, in the face of government’s Fact-Check Unit amendments, held that such rules exceeded powers granted under the IT Act, undermining free expression and the freedom of the press. This judgment underscores judicial resistance to regulatory overreach under pretext of controlling speech or content .
These landmark rulings may inform courts evaluating the new gaming law’s impact on constitutional freedoms and commercial rights.
Conclusion
India’s enactment of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 represents a pivotal moment in digital economy regulation—juxtaposing state-endorsed moral regulation against the legal protection of trade and enterprise. While policymakers cite urgent social concerns to justify a sweeping ban on real-money gaming, the absence of nuanced classification between gambling and skill-based gaming raises serious questions about arbitrariness, legislative overreach, and constitutional propriety.
The pending litigation by A23 could chart new jurisprudence on how Indian law balances social welfare mandates against fundamental privileges—particularly those under Article 19. The resolution may define the contours of permissible state intervention in burgeoning digital industries and influence regulatory design across sectors such as fintech, e-commerce, and digital content.
As courts navigate these tensions, stakeholders—courts, regulators, industry, and citizens—must anticipate the broader ramifications for innovation, investment climate, and rule-of-law norms in the digital age.
