A23 Challenges Karnataka’s Online Gaming Ban in High Court, Itemizing Set for August 30, ETLegalWorld

As reported by ET Legal World on August 27, actual cash gaming operator A23’s father or mother agency Head Digital Works has filed a constitutional problem to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which banned all on-line actual cash gaming within the nation.

This is the primary main constitutional problem to the Act, whereas different gaming corporations together with Dream Sports, Gameskraft and Zupee have determined to not problem the Act.

The matter was talked about by senior advocate Aryama Sundaram and Karnataka HC senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, and the High Court has listed the matter for Saturday, August 30.

The petition has offered a complete authorized transient arguing the laws violates a number of constitutional ideas beneath Article 19 and Article 14 and undermines a respectable business value over INR 2 lakh crores.

Core constitutional violations

Article 19(1)(g) – Right to Business:The petitioners argue the Act’s blanket prohibition straight violates their elementary proper to conduct lawful commerce. The Supreme Court, starting with R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957), has constantly distinguished video games of talent from playing as respectable enterprise actions deserving constitutional safety.Multiple High Court judgments from Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, and Bombay acknowledged fantasy sports activities specifically codecs as predominantly skill-based. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of appeals has successfully settled this authorized place. The petitioner argues the Act is extremely vires because it collapses this established distinction between video games of talent and probability, making an attempt to override judicial precedent by means of blanket laws.

Article 14 – Equality and Arbitrariness:The petition challenges discriminatory remedy—prohibiting on-line cash video games whereas leaving comparable bodily format video games untouched. The laws was enacted with out stakeholder session or empirical information, contrasting with the federal government’s consultative strategy for different digital rules. The Act arbitrarily nullifies current regulatory frameworks, together with NITI Aayog’s Draft Guiding Principles and MeitY’s IT Gaming Rules, demonstrating governmental arbitrariness.

Proportionality and coverage contradictions

The petition argues full prohibition fails constitutional checks when regulation would suffice, proposing options like licensing, KYC verification, and spending caps. Companies criticize reliance on WHO’s “Gaming Disorder” classification, which pertains to leisure video gaming, not skill-based cash video games. They spotlight the contradiction in selling e-sports—which falls beneath WHO’s probably addictive “digital gaming” definition—whereas banning talent video games.

Economic and sensible impression

The petition emphasizes devastating financial penalties: potential lack of over 2 lakh jobs, INR 31,000 crores in annual revenues, and over INR 20,000 crores in tax contributions. Companies argue the ban will push customers towards unregulated offshore platforms, worsening cash laundering and fraud—the very issues the Act purports to deal with. The monetary transaction prohibition is in comparison with a earlier RBI round struck down for destroying a respectable business by means of monetary embargo.

• Published On Aug 28, 2025 at 11:20 AM IST

Join the group of 2M+ business professionals.

Subscribe to Newsletter to get newest insights & evaluation in your inbox.

All about ETLegalWorld business proper in your smartphone!