MediaNama’s Take: The Centre’s affidavit approaches online money gaming from the standpoint of broad precaution, treating the sector as one that warrants strong intervention before alleged risks escalate further. Rather than isolating specific operators or practices, the submission frames the industry as an emerging policy problem marked by behavioural concerns, inconsistent State-level regulation and financial vulnerabilities identified by enforcement agencies. This framing helps explain why the government has opted for a sweeping prohibition rather than incremental safeguards, even if the affidavit does not always spell out how different kinds of platforms contribute to the risks it highlights.
Nevertheless, the filing does raise substantive questions about the limits of existing regulatory tools. State laws have struggled to apply coherently in a digital environment, and enforcement agencies have repeatedly flagged cross-border networks, opaque payment channels and intermediary-driven fund flows as areas where conventional regulation falls short. The affidavit positions the Prohibition of Online Money Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA) as a response to these gaps, but the proportionality of that response, particularly in light of ongoing debates over games of skill, constitutional protections and economic rights, remains unresolved.
As the Supreme Court evaluates the competing claims, the central issue may ultimately be whether the regulatory challenge posed by real money gaming requires a targeted framework or whether the government’s blanket approach is justified as a preventive measure.
What’s the News?
On November 25, 2025, the Union government filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court in response to Head Digital Works’ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Online Money Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA), a copy of which MediaNama accessed.
In its reply, the Centre argues that the law is not only valid but also urgently required to tackle what it describes as a nationwide public harm caused by online money gaming platforms. The affidavit asserts that the real money gaming industry has triggered “large-scale tax evasion, money-laundering, cross-border illicit fund flows, and vulnerabilities relating to potential terror-financing”.
Head Digital Works has argued that the online money gaming ban under PROGA violates several constitutional rights, including equality under Article 14, the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), protection against retrospective punishment under Article 20, and the right to personal liberty under Article 21. It also claims the Act disrupts free movement of trade under Article 301 and intrudes on State powers over “betting and gambling”.
However, the government argues that online money gaming is res extra commercium—an activity that Article 19(1)(g) does not protect—and says that, even if it were protected, the prohibition qualifies as…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
