Karnataka High Court declines stay on India’s online gaming ban after plea by A23

Karnataka High Court declines stay on India’s online gaming ban after plea by A23

The matter will be heard on 8 September

The Karnataka High Court has declined to pause the government’s new Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which is yet to be notified.

Thus, as of now, the contentious law remains intact, as judges weigh industry claims of constitutional violations against state efforts to regulate a fast-growing sector.

A23, India’s leading gaming platform, had challenged the online gaming ban, but did not get any relief at the first hearing.

The bench directed the respondents to file their responses and complete pleadings on the interim application for a stay by 8th September. The matter will be heard on that day.

Representing A23, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, sought an interim relief pleading that either a direction be given that the law will not be notified until arguments conclude, or a week’s prior notice be provided.

He argued that the sudden enforcement would shut down a long-standing industry, risking numerous jobs. He added that, though it was projected as a measure for ‘promotion and regulation, the Act prohibited skill-based money games. He cited the previous online-gaming rulings and the Supreme Court’s decision on Indian Hotels, wherein it was held that fresh legislation in a different guise could merit interim protection.

Appearing on behalf of the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that the law raised a first-of-its-kind constitutional issue. The Parliament had the power to legislate gaming involving money and cross-border play. While resisting the demand for a prior notice, he explained that the notification of a law was a legislative function, which the courts should not restrain.

Underscoring the need for a full hearing, he pointed out that A23 had earlier challenged state gaming laws on the grounds of competence. It said that the states lacked the power to legislate, but now claims even the Parliament lacks the power.

Meanwhile, the petition by A23 stated that the law infringed on constitutional rights, including the freedom to conduct business and free speech. It disproportionately targeted skill-based gaming ventures. The gaming firm contended that the legislation could drive players toward unregulated offshore operators and termed the Act’s criminal penalties and advertising restrictions as excessive.

The case will set a precedent in the country’s regulatory landscape for online gaming. The court’s decision will focus on balancing government regulation goals while safeguarding industry growth and individual rights.