Centre For Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Supreme Court of India by the Centre For Accountability Systemic Change (CASC) & Anr., invoking Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition sought multiple directions against the Union of India and various other respondents regarding the regulation and prohibition of online gaming, gambling, and betting.
The key reliefs requested in the petition included:
- A directive for the harmonious interpretation of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, and state laws to prohibit online gambling and betting games operating under the guise of social and e-sports games.
- A direction to issue blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act against all unlawful betting and gambling platforms operating in India.
- A mandate to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), and other UPI platforms to prohibit transactions related to online money games not registered in India.
- A request for the adoption of stringent provisions, specifically drawing inspiration from the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gaming Act, 2022, across India to curb the issue of online gambling and betting, similar to invoking the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) to combat organized crimes.
- A direction to Respondents No. 5 and 6 to adhere strictly to the IT (Intermediary) Rules 2021 and permit only whitelisted online gaming apps licensed by Indian authorities on their platforms (e.g., Play Store).
- A directive to the appropriate respondent to issue instructions for the recovery of GST and Income Tax from offshore companies by seeking assistance from Interpol through the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- A mandate to the Respondents to protect the data of children already collected by online gaming companies.
Upon hearing the matter, the Supreme Court did not pass any immediate substantive orders on the reliefs sought. Instead, the Court took the following procedural steps:
- Requested the counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the entire paper book to Mr. V.C. Bharathi, the learned panel counsel who ordinarily appears for the Revenue.
- Requested Mr. Bharathi to look into the petition and assist the Court on the next date of hearing.
- Ordered the matter to be listed after two weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Paid content
Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.
