A Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan made this decision following the Centre’s request for consolidation. The Centre had reasoned that the issues raised in different petitions were virtually identical, and conflicting rulings from different High Courts would create confusion.

This move has immediately raised the stakes for the petitioners. For companies that built their platforms around fantasy sports and other skill-based games, the Act has upended years of investment and legal recognition. For the government, however, the legislation was necessary to confront what it saw as a rising tide of social harm.

The law & the challenge

The Online Gaming Act, 2025, promotes e-sports and social games, but bans “online money games,” covering both skill and chance-based games if played for stakes. Parliament justified the move by citing addiction, financial ruin, money laundering, and even terror financing, concluding that a complete ban was necessary in the interest of the public.

The petitioners, gaming platforms Head Digital Works, Bagheera Carrom, and Clubboom 11 Sports & Entertainment, which offer online rummy, poker, and carrom, respectively, are challenging this Act because it bans skill-based online games and restricts their legitimate business activities.

At the heart of the challenge to the Gaming Act lies a constitutional debate over the legal difference between a “game of skill” and a “game of chance.”

Grounds for challenge

Article 19: Article 19 of the Constitution grants citizens the fundamental right “to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”

In R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (1957), the Supreme Court had held that gambling, a game of chance, could be excluded from this protection, but a game of skill, even when played for stakes, remained a legitimate business activity. Legislatures may regulate it in the public interest, but cannot prohibit it outright, the court had held.

The petitioners argue that the Act ignores this position. They point out, “While all games may involve an element of chance, a game involving a substantial degree of skill is not a game of chance, even if played with stakes”. In a game of skill, winning depends on “superior knowledge, training, attention, experience, and adroitness of the player” whereas an outcome in a game of chance is “determined entirely or predominantly by lot or mere luck.”

Yet, Section 2(1)(g) of the Act defines an “online money game” to include any online game, “irrespective of whether such game is based on skill, chance, or both,” so long as it is played for stakes. By this move, the petitioners argue, the law obliterates the distinction recognised in Chamarbaugwala.

The petitioners cited the 2022 Karnataka HC case All India Gaming Federation vs State of Karnataka, in which the court had struck down a similar state law, noting that the games of skill, including rummy, poker, and fantasy sports, are fundamentally distinct from gambling and remain protected under Article 19(1)(g), even when played online or for stakes. The Karnataka HC had observed that the act of playing games can itself constitute a form of expression.

The Online Gaming Act restricts this right, and not under the justifications permitted by Article 19(2), such as public order, security, or morality. In this context, the petitioners say, the word “morality” must align with constitutional principles, not the government’s policy preferences. By classifying skill-based games as gambling and imposing penalties, the law undermines both business activity and individual rights.

Article 14: Article 14 prohibits the State from treating equals unequally, unless there is a reasonable basis for doing so. This is known as reasonable classification. The petitions say that the Act flouts this principle. By lumping games of skill and games of chance alike, the law draws an arbitrary distinction.

For a classification to pass muster, it must be based on a real difference that’s relevant to the law’s purpose. Here, the petitioners say, the Act does neither: it collapses the skill-chance divide and imposes a “blanket ban” that, in their view, undermines its own stated aims of promoting the sector while protecting players.

For example, a rummy game, which relies on skill, is treated the same as gambling, where outcomes are purely based on chance. Petitioners say this highlights how the law fails to distinguish between two fundamentally different activities.

Article 21: The petitions also draw upon Article 21, which guarantees not only life and personal liberty but also dignity, privacy, and decisional autonomy.

On this reasoning, the Act is described as paternalistic, as it seeks to make decisions for individuals about how they spend their money and leisure time. Petitioners argue that “an Act which is paternalistic legislation seeks to take away individuals’ freedom to determine what games to play and how and in what manner to deploy resources belonging to them, depriving a person of their choice to play a game is violative of Article 21.”

By banning any game involving monetary prizes, the Act fails to distinguish between someone playing for enjoyment and someone playing to win a prize. The ambiguity in the language of the provisions creates legal uncertainty, in a way that individuals and companies become unsure of what is allowed. When laws are vague or ambiguous, they erode the principle of due process, which demands clarity, fairness, and procedural safeguards before any restriction is placed on a person’s liberty, livelihood, or autonomy under Article 21.

Legislative competence: The Constitution divides law-making powers between the Union and the States through the Seventh Schedule, which contains three Lists: Union, State, and Concurrent. Entry 34 of the State List explicitly places “betting and gambling” within the States’ legislative competence. This is why it has historically been State governments that have enacted laws regulating lotteries and gambling houses.

The Petitioners say that the 2025 Act is enacted under Entry 31 of the Union List, which covers “posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication.” They argue that Entry 31 authorises regulation of the medium of communication (such as telecom networks), not the content transmitted over it. To regulate games themselves, they say, is to intrude into the States’ field.

They also reject reliance on Entry 52 of the Union List, which allows Parliament to assume control of an industry “in the public interest.” Online gaming, they argue, is not an “industry” but a service. Petitioners point out that the Karnataka High Court in 2022 struck down a similar State law, the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, and say that by repeating the same approach, Parliament has ignored judicial precedent and stakeholder consultation.

Executive overreach: Critics argue that the law allows the government to introduce new rules and punishments without prior notice, affecting the ability of platforms to operate with certainty. According to the petitions, these powers are not clearly defined and may be exercised without specific guidelines.

Businesses offering skill-based games say they are unsure about what activities are permitted and what could lead to penalties. The petitions argue that the law allows the government to introduce new rules and punishments without prior notice, affecting the ability of platforms to operate with certainty.

Economic stakes: The petitions foreground the economic consequences of the Act. The online skill-gaming industry is estimated to employ lakhs of people, generate significant tax revenue, and attract foreign investment.

Petitioners argue that by “criminalising an entire sector overnight,” the Act threatens jobs, wipes out investment, and undermines India’s position in the global gaming market.

They also criticise the process, noting that the government “did not take the opinion of the public and the stakeholders,” which they describe as “rendering a mockery of the process of debate and deliberation mandated by democracy.

What SC has to decide

The court will now address four broad issues.

*First, whether Parliament even had the legislative competence to pass the Act, which is reserved for the States;

*Second, whether the removal of the skill chance distinction violates Articles 14 and 19 by criminalising legitimate businesses;

*Third, whether the total prohibition, backed by severe criminal penalties, meets the test of proportionality under Article 21; and

*Fourth, whether the definition of online money games impinges upon constitutional provisions.