Can on-line cash gaming be fully banned? SC asks Govt

The Supreme Court has sought to know from the Union authorities whether or not on-line gaming and betting platforms might be fully banned, because it agreed to look at a public curiosity litigation (PIL) alleging that playing and betting web sites are thriving beneath the guise of social and e-sports video games.

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan requested the Centre to help the courtroom on the problem, requesting the counsel for the petitioner organisation, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), to share the entire case file with VC Bharathi, the panel counsel for the Union authorities, and directed the matter to be listed after two weeks.

“We request Mr Bharathi to look into the petition and assist us on the next date of hearing,” the bench stated in its temporary order.

Advocates Virag Gupta and Rupali Panwar appeared for CASC, a public coverage assume tank that seeks instructions for a nationwide prohibition on on-line playing and betting platforms, lots of which, it claimed, proceed to function within the garb of “social” or “e-sports” gaming apps.

The plea, filed by means of advocate Vishal Arun Mishra, has additionally requested the courtroom to make clear the scope of the newly enacted Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, and to direct the federal government to harmoniously interpret it with state legal guidelines that prohibit playing and betting.

The October 17 proceedings marked the Supreme Court’s first step in straight analyzing whether or not the Centre can impose a whole ban on on-line betting and playing platforms, at the same time as it’s seized of a bunch of petitions regarding the constitutional validity of the 2025 legislation. The consequence might outline the way forward for India’s fast-growing however controversial on-line gaming trade, which sits on the intersection of know-how, leisure and regulation.

In its plea, CASC has urged the highest courtroom to order the blocking of illegal betting and playing web sites beneath Section 69A of the IT Act, and to direct the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and different UPI platforms to cease processing transactions associated to unregistered or offshore gaming corporations.

In addition, CASC seeks restoration of over ₹2 lakh crore in unpaid taxes from offshore gaming operators by means of investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Interpol. It additional asks the courtroom to make sure that the information of youngsters collected by gaming corporations is protected and that solely licensed apps are listed on Apple and Google’s app shops.

The petitioner contended that the unchecked enlargement of on-line cash video games had develop into a “national crisis”, inflicting extreme monetary losses, dependancy, psychological well being points and suicides. It claimed that the proliferation of real-money gaming platforms, usually endorsed by high cricketers and movie stars, was fuelling cyber frauds and cash laundering, with algorithms designed to mislead gamers.

“Betting and gambling are regarded as unlawful activities in most Indian states. Around half of India’s population — more than 65 crore people, are playing such games, generating an annual business of over ₹1.8 lakh crore for these platforms,” the PIL contended.

The petition emphasised that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, enacted by Parliament in August, recognises the devastating social and financial impression of on-line betting and was handed “to ensure societal welfare and prevent the serious evil creeping into society.”

The Act supplies a complete nationwide framework distinguishing permissible e-sports and informal gaming from real-money wagering. It bans on-line real-money video games and associated promoting, prescribing penalties of as much as three years’ imprisonment and fines as much as ₹1 crore for service suppliers, and two years and ₹50 lakh for these selling or promoting such platforms.

Last month, the identical bench of justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan transferred to itself all petitions pending earlier than varied excessive courts difficult the constitutional validity of the brand new legislation. The Centre had argued that because the laws had already obtained the President’s assent, its enforcement was a “constitutional function” past judicial restraint.

The Union authorities, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, informed the apex courtroom on September 8 that at the very least three excessive courts , Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, had been listening to related challenges, and {that a} centralised adjudication was needed to stop conflicting rulings.