Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on online trading and gambling activities, emphasised that adequate statutory frameworks for such grievances exists, including the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, thus, there is no occasion for the Court to entertain the PIL under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
There were three Writ Petitions, heard together by the Court seeking to restrain and take action against the 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.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “The decision to decline entertainment of the petition in hand is predicated solely upon the availability of specific, pre-existing statutory framework designed to address such matters. This Court harbors no reason to not anticipate that the concerned authorities, shall diligently consider the grievances and issues raised in the petition in hand”.
Brief Facts
Three PILs was filed seeking restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising, promoting, or marketing betting and wagering activities through various platforms as it being in violation of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Haryana Prevention Of Public Gambling Act, 2025, Information Technology Rules, 2021.
The Petitioners contended that opinion trading platforms under the guise of innovation are conducting large-scale betting and gambling activities. It was further submitted that online trading platforms disingenuously present themselves as investment and trading platforms. However, meticulous scrutiny of the activities transacted thereon revealed that they are fundamentally imbued with the characteristics of pure gambling and wagering.
While the State contended that there already exists a statutory framework within which any aggrieved person can approach the concerned authorities, special attention was drawn to the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025.
Court’s Reasoning
The Punjab and Haryana High Court discussed the genesis of PIL and its role in profound societal transformations & fostering essential reforms for nearly half a century.
“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.”, the Court said.
The rationale given by the Court was threefold: firstly, allowing such PIL would lead to judicial usurpation of legislative foresight and undermine the primary responsibility of the Legislature to craft laws. Secondly, in the existence of a statutory framework, intervention by way of PIL would circumvent the intended architecture of grievance redressal and potentially dilute the role of expert authorities. Thirdly, encouraging indiscriminate PILs, despite available statutory remedies, leads to an unwarranted proliferation of litigation and, burden on Constitutional Courts.
Accordingly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with liberty to raise grievance before the concerned authorities in terms of extant law(s), including The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025.
Cause Title: Anuj Malik vs. The Union of India and Ors (Neutral Citation 2025:PHHC:076411)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Atul Nanda(Senior Advocate), Advocates Rameeza Hakeem, Aditya Singh, Anuj Malik, Davinder Singh, Sunita Bishnoi, Amit Jhanji( Senior Advocate), Hakikat Grewal, Vibhu Agnihotri, Kudrit Kaur Sara, Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG Punjab, Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Akshay Bhan(Senior Advocate), Animesh Sharma.
Respondent: Advocates Abhinav Sood, Mehndi Singhal, Achintaya Soni, Sayyam Garg, Nitesh Jhajhria, Satya Pal Jain ( Additional Solicitor General of India), Dheeraj Jain, Sunish Bindlish, Viney Kumar, Sehajbir Singh, Diya Sodhi, Indresh Goel.
