P&H High Court Junks PIL Seeking Ban On Online Betting, Says Remedy Available Under Haryana Prevention Of Public Gambling Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday (June 20) refused to entertain a PIL seeking to restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising and/or facilitating betting and wagering activities, which was said to be in violation of the Public Gambling Act.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "since there...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday (June 20) refused to entertain a PIL seeking to restrain all online opinion trading platforms, mobile applications, websites, and digital mediums from advertising and/or facilitating betting and wagering activities, which was said to be in violation of the Public Gambling Act.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "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."
Speaking for the bench, Justice Goel clarified that the decision to decline the petition 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, and proceed to adjudicate upon them strictly in accordance with law and established procedure," he added further.
The Court was hearing a batch of three petitions seeking to bring forthwith the unchecked proliferation of online “opinion trading” platforms that, under the guise of innovation, are conducting large-scale betting and gambling activities in blatant violation of statutory laws.
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, despite a robust legal framework being in place, the law is being flouted by the use of misleading advertisements and unregulated financial systems. Senior counsel iterated that, in case appropriate action is not undertaken, such platforms would continue to dupe gullible users.
After hearing the submission, the Court said that, notwithstanding the vast and pervasive jurisdiction, it has been the consistent predilection of the Court to exercise a degree of circumspection, manifesting in a form of self-imposed judicial restraint.
Allowing Unfettered Recourse To PIL When Statutory Remedy Available Amounts To Judicial Usurpation
The Court opined that he presence of a comprehensive statutory framework implies that the Legislature, in its collective wisdom, has already deliberated upon and provided specific avenues for grievance redressal. "Allowing unfettered recourse to PIL in such instances would amount to a judicial usurpation of legislative foresight and undermining the primary responsibility of the Legislature to craft laws."
Justice Goel highlighted that the statutory frameworks often establish administrative authorities vested with requisite expertise. Bypassing these meticulously designed mechanisms through PIL circumvents the intended architecture of grievance redressal and potentially diluting the role of expert authorities.
Encouraging Indiscriminate PILs Despite Available Remedy Burdens Court
The Court further elucidated that encouraging indiscriminate PILs, despite available statutory remedies, leads to an unwarranted proliferation of litigation, burden on Constitutional courts as well as a judicial docket explosion.
"This risks transforming Constitutional courts into primary redressal fora rather than their intended role as ultimate arbiters of Constitutional questions. Judicial resources, being scant and precious, must be conserved for matters of genuine public importance requiring direct intervention and to address systemic injustices for those truly lacking alternative avenues," it added.
However, the Court made it clear that it has not expressed any observation whatsoever on the substantive merits of the grievances and issues propounded by the petitioner.
Stating that the petitioner is at liberty, in accordance with law, to raise his grievance before the concerned authorities as per the law, including the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, the plea was disposed of.
Mr. Atul Nanda, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate,
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anuj Malik - petitioner in person in CWP-PIL-104-2025.
Mr. Davinder Singh – petitioner in person with Ms. Sunita Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-89-2025.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Advocate,
Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-PIL-120-2025.
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG Punjab. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Advocate Ms. Achintaya Soni, Advocate Mr. Sayyam Garg, Advocate Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocate for the respondent-U.T. Chd.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel for the UOI.
Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel, CBI and Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.6 in CWP-PIL-89-2025.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Advocate for respondent No.7 in CWP-PIL-120-2025.
Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.8 in CWP-PIL-104-2025.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant in CM-CWP-PIL-134-2025.