Court observations on implementation

The case was taken up by a division bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, according to local media. During the hearing, the bench pointed out that the Union government has not yet set up the authority that will regulate the law. The Chief Justice observed that without constituting the authority and finalising the rules, the provisions of the Act cannot be operationalised.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the central government. He told the court that rules under the Act are being prepared and an authority is in the process of being established. He defended the law, stressing its public interest objectives. He added that the government’s goal is to ensure safe online gaming while restricting real-money games that may cause addiction and even suicides among young players.

Bagheera’s petition

Bagheera Carrom’s petition argues that the 2025 Act was passed in haste without adequate consultation with stakeholders from the online gaming sector. It challenges the blanket ban on real-money games, including those recognised as skill-based.

The company emphasised that carrom has long been classified as a skill game and is governed by national and international federations. It further stated that it has made significant investments to comply with existing rules and holds a certification from the E-Gaming Federation confirming that its platform operates purely as a skill-based service without wagering.

According to the petition, the new Act threatens to subject Bagheera to criminal prosecution and financial collapse, despite its adherence to responsible gaming practices.

Constitutional grounds

Bagheera contends that the law violates several constitutional protections. It has invoked Article 14, which guarantees equality before law, Article 19, which protects the right to carry on trade or business, and Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. The petition describes the ban as arbitrary, disproportionate and vague.

The company has also questioned the legislative competence of the central government. It has argued that subjects such as “betting and gambling” and “sports, entertainment and amusements” fall within the State List under the Constitution, and therefore only state legislatures have the power to make laws on these matters.

Request to read down the law

In addition to seeking to strike down the Act, Bagheera has requested the court to read down its provisions. It has asked the bench to clarify that games of skill, even when played for stakes, should continue to remain lawful.

The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for further hearing after eight weeks. A similar challenge to the Act has also been filed before the Karnataka High Court by online rummy platform A23, which is pending consideration.