<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday asked the Union of India to respond to the petition challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. Justice B M Shyam Prasad adjourned the proceedings to September 8, also asking the Centre to submit its response on the application filed by the petitioners seeking an interim stay of the implementation of the new legislation.</p><p>The court was hearing a petition filed by Head Digital Works Private Limited, New Delhi, which operates the gaming application and website A23. The petition challenged the new legislation, which received the President's assent on August 22.</p><p>During the hearing, senior counsel Aryam Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that implementation of the new Act would affect lakhs of employment as well as the industry. “It is our concern that if this industry is closed overnight there will be a serious backlash. Let them (Centre) file their reply and let them not notify the Act till the matter is heard. Or give a week's notice before notifying the Act so that we can move the court," he said.</p>.Comments on Dasara inaugurator-Banu Mushtaq hampering image of Mysuru, Karnataka: MLC A H Vishwanath .<p>On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the union government, said that it is for the first time when the court is examining the competence of the parliament. He said the preamble of the new legislation says it (the issue) has extra territorial/trans border implications.</p><p>“Once the President has given assent, notifying is a constitutional process and courts may not interfere. Once Parliament passes legislation, the assent of the President having been satisfied, merely because some individual is aggrieved, we need not inform him in advance that we will be notifying the law,” the SG said. When the court asked the union whether there is any possibility of an immediate notification, Tushar Mehta sought time to take instruction, while adding that notification is a normal process once the assent is accorded.</p><p>The petition has challenged sections 2(1) (g), 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the new Act. The petition said section 2(1) (g) attempts to blur the distinction between games of skill and games of chance in defining 'online money game', a distinction recognised under the constitution. According to the petitioners, the legislation was enacted without prior consultation with sector stakeholders and that imposing an immediate prohibition on the industry is manifestly arbitrary. The petitioners cited the Apex Court’s view that games of skill involving monetary risk are legitimate business activities protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday asked the Union of India to respond to the petition challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. Justice B M Shyam Prasad adjourned the proceedings to September 8, also asking the Centre to submit its response on the application filed by the petitioners seeking an interim stay of the implementation of the new legislation.</p><p>The court was hearing a petition filed by Head Digital Works Private Limited, New Delhi, which operates the gaming application and website A23. The petition challenged the new legislation, which received the President's assent on August 22.</p><p>During the hearing, senior counsel Aryam Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that implementation of the new Act would affect lakhs of employment as well as the industry. “It is our concern that if this industry is closed overnight there will be a serious backlash. Let them (Centre) file their reply and let them not notify the Act till the matter is heard. Or give a week's notice before notifying the Act so that we can move the court," he said.</p>.Comments on Dasara inaugurator-Banu Mushtaq hampering image of Mysuru, Karnataka: MLC A H Vishwanath .<p>On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the union government, said that it is for the first time when the court is examining the competence of the parliament. He said the preamble of the new legislation says it (the issue) has extra territorial/trans border implications.</p><p>“Once the President has given assent, notifying is a constitutional process and courts may not interfere. Once Parliament passes legislation, the assent of the President having been satisfied, merely because some individual is aggrieved, we need not inform him in advance that we will be notifying the law,” the SG said. When the court asked the union whether there is any possibility of an immediate notification, Tushar Mehta sought time to take instruction, while adding that notification is a normal process once the assent is accorded.</p><p>The petition has challenged sections 2(1) (g), 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the new Act. The petition said section 2(1) (g) attempts to blur the distinction between games of skill and games of chance in defining 'online money game', a distinction recognised under the constitution. According to the petitioners, the legislation was enacted without prior consultation with sector stakeholders and that imposing an immediate prohibition on the industry is manifestly arbitrary. The petitioners cited the Apex Court’s view that games of skill involving monetary risk are legitimate business activities protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.</p>