Gaming
From Valsad to SC: Justice Pardiwala holds fate of $3 billion gaming industry, 2 lakh jobs
Centre files caveats in nine High Courts, names Dream11, MPL, WinZO among others
The presence of both Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman in the Karnataka HC case has underscored the seriousness with which the Union government is approaching the online gaming dispute.
A caveat, under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a formal request to a court by a party anticipating litigation.
The Government of India has filed caveats in nine different High Courts across the country to safeguard its position against a wave of litigation expected from the real-money gaming industry. The step signals the Centre’s intent to mount a tough legal fight as gaming operators challenge the new regulatory framework for online games involving monetary stakes.
On Saturday, the Karnataka High Court heard a writ petition filed by Head Digital Works, the parent company of the gaming platform A23. The government, represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, opposed the plea. The presence of both senior law officers in the same matter was a rare occurrence, underlining the significance the government attaches to the case.
According to sources in the gaming industry, the government has filed caveats in the High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, Assam, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Allahabad, and Karnataka. The caveats name several leading gaming companies, including Dream11, Gameskraft, Mobile Premier League (MPL), WinZO, Games24x7, Zupee, and Baazi Games.
A caveat, under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a formal request to a court by a party anticipating litigation. It ensures that courts do not pass ex parte orders—decisions made without hearing the other side. A caveat remains valid for 90 days from filing, after which it lapses if no related application is made. The mechanism acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Multiple gaming firms Dream11, Gameskraft, Zupee, PokerBaazi parent Moonshine and MPL had stated that they will not be challenging the law in the court. However, it is not yet clear if remaining gaming firms such as WinZO, Junglee Games and Games 24x7 will challenge government in court against the newly passed online gaming legislation.
A senior advocate representing a leading gaming operator told Storyboard18 that the move reflects the Centre’s foresight. “The government was expecting a strong pushback from the industry. Filing caveats in multiple High Courts was a precautionary step to ensure that they are heard before any orders are passed,” the advocate said.
Another legal expert added that the strategy leaves little doubt about the Centre’s determination. “The intention of the government is strong and clear—they are preparing for a long, tough legal battle with the gaming firms,” the lawyer noted.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union government to file its response to Head Digital Works’ petition by September 8. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under the newly enacted Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which industry representatives claim violates fundamental rights such as the freedom to conduct trade and business.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad, presiding over the single-judge bench, stated that the matter would require detailed consideration. Legal experts estimate that proceedings at this stage could take up to six months before a judgment is delivered. Any ruling by the single bench could subsequently be appealed before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, and eventually escalated to the Supreme Court of India.
During Saturday’s hearing, Solicitor General Mehta emphasized that once Presidential assent has been granted, the government is obligated to notify the law without undue delay. He further highlighted a critical issue at the heart of the dispute: the question of jurisdiction. According to him, the matter involves determining whether the Union government or state governments hold the primary authority to regulate the real-money online gaming sector.
SPOTLIGHT
Big-ticket buying decisions now demand more than just logic and product specs – they require trust, emotional connection, and brand stories that resonate.
Read MoreExplained: What the Online Gaming Bill means for the industry, users and platforms
The Online Gaming Bill 2025 imposes severe penalties, allows warrantless search and seizure, and empowers a central authority to regulate the digital gaming ecosystem. It is expected to disrupt platforms, payment systems, and advertising in the sector. Here's all you need to know about the bill.