The Central Government on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that concrete steps will be taken to constitute an authority and to frame Rules and Regulations under the recently enacted Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
The assurance came from Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. He clarified that while the Act has already received the assent of the President, it has not yet been notified under Section 1(3). Once the notification is issued, the government will immediately proceed with constituting the regulatory authority and framing detailed rules to operationalize the law.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Bagheera Carrom (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., a company that has developed “Bagheera Carrom” as an e-sports platform. The petitioner, represented through Advocates Harsh Jaiswal and Aadya Mishra, has challenged the constitutional validity of the Online Gaming Act on grounds of manifest arbitrariness and vagueness.
The petition also raises specific objections to:
• Section 5 of the Act, which places restrictions on certain categories of games.
• The definition of “online money game” under Section 2(1)(g).
• The definition of “e-sports” under Section 2(1)(c).
The petitioner alternatively sought a reading down of these provisions if the Act itself is upheld.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that for the law to function, the government must first constitute an authority under the Act and then frame rules to give it working effect. “They must be in process,” CJ remarked, hinting at the practical necessity of executive steps before enforcement.
When petitioner’s counsel expressed concern that action might be initiated against the company once the Act is brought into force, Justice Gedela intervened to ask: “Can an enactment be challenged on the basis of mere presumption?”
Responding to the apprehensions, SGI Mehta clarified that although the Act has received Presidential assent, it is not in force until notified. Therefore, no prosecution or penal action can presently be taken under it.
The Chief Justice further emphasized:
“Unless a notification is issued, this Act cannot come into being. Your apprehension that you will be prosecuted is not live as of today. We expect the government to frame Rules. There cannot be assumption that they won’t constitute the authority. They may constitute the authority also. We are yet to wait.”
SGI Mehta reiterated the government’s commitment:
“We are in the process of framing Rules and contemplating constituting the authority also. The government is promoting online gaming. We are not against it. But online money gaming results in addiction in children, suicides etc.”
The Chief Justice, in response, illustrated a scenario where an e-sport entrepreneur seeks to launch an online platform. In such cases, the authority under the Act will be the competent body to determine the permissibility of such ventures. Without rules and a constituted authority, the Act cannot be implemented in practice.
The Bench noted that any apprehensions of stakeholders could potentially be addressed once the Rules are notified and the authority is functional.
Concluding the day’s hearing, the Court adjourned the matter and directed it to be listed after eight weeks, giving the government sufficient time to make progress on the notification, rule-making, and constitution of the authority.
