Punjab and Haryana HC Dismisses PIL Against Online Betting Platforms, Cites Adequate Legal Remedies [Read Judgment]

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to restrain online opinion trading platforms from advertising and facilitating betting and wagering activities, citing the availability of adequate statutory remedies.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel delivered the judgment on June 20, 2025, in a batch of three connected civil writ petitions challenging the proliferation of online gambling platforms.

The court addressed the case involving three writ petitions filed by Anuj Malik, Kanvik Foundation, and Davinder Singh. It noted that the petitioners were seeking “immediate and appropriate action to restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising, promoting, or marketing betting and wagering activities through platforms including YouTube, X (Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, Radio, Print Media, Television, etc.”

Addressing the specific concerns about online betting platforms, the petitioners’ counsel argued that these platforms, “under the guise of innovation, are conducting large-scale betting and gambling activities in blatant violation of statutory laws,” and that they “disingenuously present themselves as veritable investment and trading conduits” while being “fundamentally imbued with the characteristics of pure gambling and wagering.”

However, the court highlighted the availability of existing legal remedies, stating, “Where a robust and adequate statutory framework already subsists, providing efficacious mechanisms and prescribed procedures for the redressal of a particular grievance, the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of a PIL, in lieu of availing the remedies specifically ordained by the extant statutory provisions, is manifestly inappropriate and, indeed, impermissible.”

In a specific directive, the court instructed that, “since there exists adequate statutory frameworks for redressal of the grievances articulated in the petition in hand, including The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, there arises no occasion for this Court to entertain the petition in hand under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”

The court emphasized the importance of utilizing existing statutory frameworks, including the Public Gambling Act, 1867, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, and the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

The petitioners’ advocates, including Senior Advocate Atul Nanda and Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, argued that these platforms were duping gullible users through misleading advertisements and unregulated financial systems.

The court directed that the petitioners are at liberty to raise their grievances before the concerned authorities in terms of the existing laws, including The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025.

Case Title: Anuj Malik vs. The Union of India & Ors.

[Read Judgment]