The Karnataka High Court on Saturday directed the Union government to respond to a petition challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, a new law that industry stakeholders claim could destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people overnight.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad heard the matter and allowed the petitioners to file detailed submissions supporting their plea for an interim stay on the law’s implementation.
Petitioners’ Argument
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that while the Act had received Presidential assent, it had not yet been notified. He argued that if the law were brought into force immediately, it would have devastating consequences for the online gaming sector.
“If this industry is shut down overnight, the consequences will be serious. The government should either withhold notification until we are heard, or at least provide one week’s notice so we can approach the court,” counsel submitted.
According to the petitioners, the sudden enforcement of the law risks crores of rupees in investment and threatens the jobs of more than two lakh employees working in the online skill-gaming industry.
Centre’s Stand
Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said this was the first case where a court would examine the legislative competence of a law with cross-border implications.
He argued that once Parliament enacts a law and the President grants assent, issuing notification is part of the constitutional process and does not require prior notice to affected parties.
“Courts may not interfere at this stage. Merely because an individual feels aggrieved, it does not mean the government is required to give advance notice before notifying the law,” Mehta said.
When asked by the court whether the Centre intended to notify the law immediately, the SG said he would seek instructions. The matter was then adjourned, with the court directing the Union to file its response alongside the petitioners’ submissions for interim relief.
Constitutional Grounds Of Challenge
The petition challenges the Act on multiple constitutional grounds. It claims the law was passed without adequate consultation or deliberation, despite the government earlier supporting and promoting the online skill-gaming industry.
Relying on past Supreme Court rulings, the petitioners argued that skill-based games played for stakes qualify as a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. A blanket ban, they said, is neither proportionate nor the least restrictive measure available, making it unconstitutional.
The plea further contends that the Act is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21, which guarantee equality before law, freedom of expression, the right to livelihood, and the freedom to practice any trade or profession.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
